>^h 


■^       ^• 


■E. 


/ 


# 


J^- 


w 


OF  THK 

University  of  California. 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  i8g4. 
Accessions  No.S^  S^Q^-     Class  No. 


^/^^cUiUoPtM: 


r 


^.y 


i^ 


f 


QJi^tt. 


'ii^Jia 


u- 


i 


'11. 


/ 


# 


A  DISCUSSION 

OF 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

AS  TO 

ITS  SUBJECT,  ITS  MODE,  ITS  HISTORY, 

AND   ITS   EFFECTS   UPON 

CIVIL.  AND  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETY. 

IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  VIEWS  OF 

MR.  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL, 

AS  EXPRESSED   IN   A  SEVEN  DATs'  OE^aI'e    WITH  THE  AUTHOR,  AT 

WASHINGTON,  KENTUCKY,  October,  1823, 

AND  IN  HIS  SPURIOUS  PUBLICATION  OF  THAT  DEBATE, 

AND  OF  A  PREVIOUS   ONE,    OF   TWO   DAYS,    WITH   THE 
REV.   JOHN   WALKER,    OF   OHIO. 

AND  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  CELEBRATES 

MR.  ROBINSON,  AND  OTHER  BAPTIST  AUTHORS. 


BY  W.  L.  M'CALLA, 

Pastor  of  the  Eighth  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  and 
author  of^^A  Discussion  of  Universalism*^* 


PUBLISHED   BY    GEORGE   M'LAUGHLIN. 


1831. 


r7tvt 


:to;.-['P 


i 


PREFACE. 


In  consequence  of  a  general  challenge,  long  published  by 
Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  and  at  last  accepted  by  the  Author, 
a  debate  was  held  in  Washington,  Kentucky,  in  October,  1823, 
on  Christian  Baptism.  With  the  expectation  that  it  would 
last  three  hours,  or  a  day  at  most,  Mr.  Campbell  came  pre- 
pared with  a  printed  prospectus,  promising  that  "  All  the  ar- 
guments on  both  sides  shall  be  faithfully  and  impartially  de- 
tailed.^' As  there  was  no  stenographer,  a  detailed  report  was 
literally  impossible;  and,  as  the  debate  occupied  seven  days, 
instead  of  one,  a  detailed  report  would  have  been  a  losing,  in- 
stead of  a  lucrative  enterprise.  He  therefore  published  6000 
copies  of  the  promised  volume,  in  which  all  the  speeches  were 
composed  by  one  man,  in  such  a  way  as  to  answer  the  pur- 
pose of  one  party.  Providence  enabled  me  afterward  to  ex- 
pose this  forgery,  in  an  Octavo  volume  of  150  pages,  entitled 
"The  Unitarian  Baptist  of  the  Robinson  School  exposed.'* 
To  this  he  replied  in  a  Duodecimo  of  24  pages.  An  exposure 
of  this  pamphlet,  and  of  the  book  which  it  is  intended  to  sup- 
port, is  prefixed  to  the  argument  in  this  volume. 

The  public  are  already  informed  that  want  of  time  com- 
pelled me  to  omit,  in  the  debate,  much  matter  which  had  heen 
prepared  for  it.  This  need  not  be  suppressed  in  a  pr  nted 
publication.  As  Mr.  Campbell's  report  has  taken  the  liberty 
of  making  new  speeches,  in  part,  for  himself,  as  well  as  en- 
tirely new  ones  for  me,  I  shall,  when  necessary,  answer  such 
interpolations,  or,  at  any  time,  strengthen  the  cause  of  truth, 
by  introducing  new  matter  on  my  part,  and  by  very  freely 
condensing  the  matter  delivered  on  the  stage. 


IV  PREFACE. 

As  the  audience  who  attended  the  debate  was  chiefly  com- 
posed of  plain  men,  so  it  is  my  wish  to  adapt  this  publication 
to  the  plainer  class  of  readers.  This  may  account  for  some 
things  which  would  otherwise  appear  very  incorrect.  One  of 
these  things  is,  that  all  my  references  to  the  Bible  are  made 
to  suit  that  division  of  chapters  and  verses  which  is  found  in 
our  English  Translation,  although  hundreds  of  those  references 
are  professedly  made  to  the  Hebrew  and  Septuagint  Scrip- 
tures. Without  this  method,  ordinary  readers  would  be  ut- 
terly perplexed,  in  searching  authorities,  whereas,  those  of 
better  opportunities  need  be  at  no  great  loss  by  the  adoption 
of  this  plan.  In  quoting  uninspired  works,  whether  ancient 
or  modern,  second-hand  authorities  are  often  more  accessible 
than  originals.  To  the  use  of  them,  both  parties  were  com- 
pelled, in  a  great  measure,  by  necessity,  during  the  debate ; 
and  where  the  credit  of  the  reporters  is  untouched  and  almost 
intangible,  the  plan  may  be  sometimes  continued  in  this  pub- 
lication.    Detections  of  errors  will  be  thankfully  received. 

If  my  friends  and  the  friends  of  truth  knew  the  difficulty 
with  which  I  write,  they  would  no  longer  censure  me  for  un- 
avoidable delays,  .but  help  me  to  give  thanks  to  that  God, 
whose  mercy  has  enabled  me  to  progress  thus  far  in  the  work. 
To  him  it  is  sincerely  and  solemnly  dedicated.  May  he  be 
pleased  to  accept  the  humble  oflfering  ;  to  pardon  its  faults  and 
imperfections,  through  the  atoning  blood  of  the  divine  Re- 
deemer; and  to  grant  tl»e  influence  of  his  divine  Spirit,  to  bless 
that  portion  of  truth  which  it  contains,  to  the  good  of  all 
denominations. 


MR.  CAMPBEIiLr'S  LATE  PAMPHLET. 


It  is  amusing  to  observe  the  time  and  labour  which  Mr. 
Campbell  and  his  testifying  satellites  have  spent,  in  assigning 
to  him  and  his  Antagonist,  their  respective  grades  in  the  scale 
of  talents  5  without  being  able  to  come  to  any  certain  estimate, 
at  last.  If  I  were  in  his  place,  it  seems  to  me,  that  I  could  set- 
tle this  darling  question,  upon  a  firm  basis  in  a  few  words.  I 
would  sit  down  and  write  a  certificate  declaring  that  Alexander 
Campbell  was  a  Solomon,  and  that  his  Antagonist  was  a  Sim- 
pleton. This  certificate  should  be  signed  by  Alexander  Camp- 
bell himself,  and  by  a  competent  number  of  Neutral  Unitarians 
and  Baptists,  and  Non-professing  sons  and  brothers  of  Baptists 
and  Baptist  preachers.  If  it  were  then  published  without  ano- 
ther word  about  the  matter,  it  would  save  the  party  and  his  wit- 
nesses, from  the  unhappy  appearance  of  inconsistency  and  self- 
complacency  which  they  now  assume.  At  present  they  certify 
that  he  could  change  sides  and  beat  me  ;  whereas  he  says  that 
he  did  once  advocate  my  side,  and  was  overcome  by  an  old 
woman.  During  the  debate,  he  often  represented  me  as  incom- 
petent and  inadequate  to  the  task  which  I  had  undertaken  ;  in 
his  book  written  afterward,  he  represented  me  as  competent  and 
adequate:  in  his  late  pamphlet  his  witnesses  certify  that  I  am 
incompetent  and  inadequate;  yet  in  the  same  pamphlet  he  extols 
my  defence  so  far  as  to  say  that  "  nothing  better  has  ever  been 
said^  and  nothing  better  can  be  said,"  on  my  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. After  thus  exalting  me  to  a  level  with  any  Pedobaptist 
who  ever  wrote,  he  gets  three  of  his  witnesses  to  certify,  that 
"Mr.  Campbell  was  successful  in  argument,  and  greatly  the 
superior  of  Mr.  M'Calla  in  point  of  talents."  Therefore,  of 
course,  he  is  greatly  superior  to  any  Pedobaptist  who  ever 
wrote. 


(     vi     ) 

As  an  apology  for  this  strange  proceeding,  in  a  man  of  com- 
mon sense,  he  would  have  the  community  believe,  tiiat  it  is  only 
a  retaliation  upon  me,  for  claiming  a  superiority  of  talents  over 
him.  If  I  have  ever  don©  so,  it  has  entirely  escaped  my  memory. 
Nothing  but  inexcusable  pride  and  ignorance  could  ever  have 
led  me  into  such  folly.  My  innocence  of  the  charge  is  plain, 
from  the  fact  that  my  accuser  has  not  been  able  to  give  one  in- 
stance, in  which  this  offence  has  been  committed.  It  is  true,  I 
have  claimed  the  victory  in  the  debate ;  and  I  believe  that  a  ju- 
dicious community  will  admit  my  claims,  when  they  read  my 
own  argument,  instead  of  one  forged  for  me  by  an  unprincipled 
adversary.  Yet,  be  it  remembered,  that  I  claimed  the  victory, 
not  on  account  of  superior  talents,  but  because  I  advocated 
God's  truth,  and  because  the  God  of  truth  condescended  to  ena- 
ble a  feeble  advocate  to  defend  his  cause  against  a  powerful  as- 
sailant. With  regard  to  Mr.  Campbell's  talents,  we  are  all,  in 
a  great  measure,  agreed.  He  considers  them  great,  and  so  do  I. 
Their  superiority  to  mine  he  has  established  by  several  certifi- 
cates. I  do  not  deny  it.  Why,  then,  so  much  about  a  matter, 
on  which  there  is  no  issue  ? 

We  are  not  so  well  agreed  on  every  thing  said  by  him  and  his 
witnesses.  Mr.  Vaughan  has  made  a  very  dashing  general  ac- 
cusation, about  the  affair  of  Captain  Buckner  It  is  time  enough 
to  make  a  particular  answer,  when  he  shall  make  a  particular 
allegation.  Until  then,  I  must  be  satisfied  with  pleading  not 
guilty  to  his  general  charge.(a)  In  the  mean  time,  let  it  be  re- 
membered that  Captain  Buckner  was  a  member  of  my  church, 
and  so  uniformly  and  perseveringly  attached  to  me,  as  a  Chris- 
tian Pastor,  that,  before  my  leaving  them,  he  declared  that  if  he 
were  possessed  of  his  former  means,  he  would  pay  my  salary  out 

(a)  This  reminds  me,  that  Mr.  Campbell  mentions  certain  things, 
■which  he  says  were  published  against  me  m  Lexington,  subsequent  to  my 
departure  from  that  place.  Their  truth  he  takes  for  granted,  because 
they  have  never  been  contradicted.  To  this  I  answer,  that  I  have  never 
got  a  sight  of  them.  I  publicly  solicited  the  wnter  and  his  phalanx  to 
come  out,  like  men,  while  I  was  on  the  spot.  But  they  chose,  like  Mr. 
Vaughan,  to  shew  their  bravery,  after  the  mountains  lay  between  us. 


(     vii     ) 

of  his  own  pocket,  rather  than  part  with  me.    Mr.  Vaughan  ad 
inits  that  this  warm  friend  is  "  a  man  of  incorruptible  integrity.'" 
If  so,  it  seems  to  me,  that  Mr.  Vaughan  himself  must  be  some- 
what deficient. 

In  another  char|2;e  of  his,  he  has  not  left  us  to  mere  presump- 
tive proof.  Unhappily  for  this  witness,  he  does  not  always  de^l 
in  vague  generalities,  but,  by  venturing  a  specification,  has 
shewn  himself  indisputably  guilty  of  the  very  crime,  with  which 
he  charges  an  innocent  man.  The  following  are  the  facts.  In 
my  exposure  of  Mr.  Campbell's  report,  I  had  written  to  Mr. 
Edgar  the  following  words,  viz.  "  You  were  very  well  satisfied 
"that  I  had  encountered  Mr.  Campbell,  until  your  mind  was 
"  changed  a  few  months  afterward,  by  information  received  from 
"  his  neighbourhood.  Fou  then  told  me,  that,  from  unanswera- 
*' ble  evidence,  his  character  was  too  low  to  justify  so  formal  a 
**  notice  by  any  respectable  man  ;  and  that,  in  defence  of  my 
*'  own  character,  an  apology  should  be  made  to  the  public. " 
Compare  this  with  Mr.  Vaughan's  certificate,  and  a  note  which 
Mr.  Campbell  has  published  as  Mr.  Vaughan's,  and  which  I  will 
here  add  in  brackets,  to  that  part  of  the  text,  from  which  he 
refers  to  it  by  an  asterisk.  It  is  as  follows,  viz.  '*  Edgar  did 
**  not  inform  Mr.  M*Calla  by  letter,  that  you  were  a  man  of  too 
"  low  a  character  for  him  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with.  [This 
"  Mr.  M'Calla  said  in  his  pamphlet.]"  According  to  this  pam- 
phlet of  mine,  Mr.  Edgar's  communication  to  me,  was  a  verbal 
one,  made  a  few  months  after  the  debate,  and,  of  course,  before 
I  had  removed  from  Kentucky  to  Philadelphia.  The  words  are, 
"  Fou  then  told  me."  Mr.  Vaughan  certifies  that  my  pamphlet 
said  that  this  communication  was  "by  letter."  Now  it  ap- 
pears, from  Mr.  Vaughan's  own  shewing,  that  Mr.  Edgar  has 
never  denied  that  he  "  /o/f/"  me  this,  as  my  pamphlet  declares,- 
he  only  denies  that  he  communicated  it  by  letter,  a  thing  which 
my  book  does  not  declare,  but  which  Mr.  Vaughan  has  forged  for 
it.     Now  where  does  the  real  falsehood  lie  ? 

Another  of  Mr.  Campbell's  witnesses  subjects  himself  to  a 
very  easy  refutation.     '*  Mr.  Moses  Ryan,  once  a  zealous  Pedo- 


(     viii     ) 

baptist,"  as  Mr.  Campbell  states,  testifies  as  follows,  viz. 
'*  I  had  to  experience  the  mortification  of  seeing  Mr.  M'Calla 
'*  exposed  for  misquoting  the  Scriptures  to  suit  his  own  pur- 
*'  poses :  and  in  reading  extracts  from  Robinson,  with  the  book 
*'  in  his  hand  and  before  his  eyes,  he  would  put  language  in  Ro- 
"  binson's  mouth  that  was  no  where  to  be  found  in  it."  "  I  can 
*'  unhesitatingly  say,  that  Mr.  Campbell  has  given  a  fair  repre- 
"  sentation  of  all  of  Mr.  M*Calla's  arguments,  during  the  four 
*'  days  that  I  attended,  excepting  the  leaving  out  of  Mr. 
*'  M'Calla's  vulgar,  abusive,  and  ungentlemanly  language,  to- 
*'  gether  with  his  base  misquotations  of  the  Scriptures  and 
*'  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism." 

From  this  certificate,  it  appears  that  I  have  been  guilty  of 
vulgar,  abusive,  and  ungentlemanly  language;  but  Mr.  Camp- 
bell charitably  dropped  this  from  his  report,  while  he  faithfully 
recorded  every  thing  that  was  decent.  It  seems  that  I  was 
guilty  of  base  misquotations  of  the  scriptures,  to  suit  my  own 
purposes  ;  and  of  basely  interpolating  and  misquoting  Robin- 
son's History  of  Baptism,  while  the  book  was  in  my  hand,  and 
before  my  eyes:  but  Mr.  Campbell  tenderly  concealed  these  er- 
rors from  the  public,  while  he  faithfully  reported  all  my  correct 
quotations  from  ihe  Scriptures,  and  other  books.  If  there  is 
any  meaning  in  language,  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  above 
testimony. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  witness  attended  only  four 
days,  and  that  two  of  these  four  were  the  sixth  and  seventh. 
Then  his  testimony  goes  to  show  that  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  re- 
port of  the  sixth  and  seventh  days,  omits  nothing  that  I  said, 
except  my  vulgarities,  and  my  misquotations  of  the  Bible  and 
Robinson.  On  examining  his  report,  it  will  be  found,  that,  for 
each  of  my  half  hours  on  these  two  days,  he  has  allowed  me, 
upon  an  average,  between  one  and  two  pages  ;  whicli,  accord- 
ing to  my  way  of  speaking,  would  be  delivered  in  less  than  three 
minutes.  The  result  then  is,  that,  during  the  two  last  days  of 
our  debate,  I  occupied  twenty-seven  or  eight  minutes  out  of 
every  thirty,  in  gross  vulgarities,  or  base  misquotations  of  the 


(  «  ) 

Bible  and  Robinson  !  This  must  be  true,  if  Mr.  Ryan's  testi- 
mony be  true. 

It  is  a  general  principle  of  all  law,  civil  or  military,  ecclesi- 
astical or  social,  that  particular  facts  are  necessary  to  support 
general  charges.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  Ryan's  testimony,  it  can 
be  proved,  that,  during  the  debate,  Mr.  Campbell  ridiculed  my 
inaccurate  quotations  of  scripture,  and  in  his  subsequent  report, 
accused  me  of  making  *^  material  alterations^^  of  the  sacred  text. 
It  can  also  be  proved  that  I  called  upon  him  for  specifications. 
He  has  never,  to  my  knowledge,  condescended  to  produce  one 
instance,  in  which  I  interpolated  or  misquoted  Mr.  Robinson, 
whether  before  my  eyes  or  not  5  he  has  never  produced  one  in- 
stance of  my  misquoting  the  scriptures,  when  before  my  eyes  5 
nor  one  inaccurate  quotation  of  them  from  memory,  which  would 
favour  my  own  cause.  If  my  charges  against  him,  had  depend- 
ed upon  the  general  certificates  of  such  men  as  Mr.  Ryan,  he 
would  have  justly  laughed  me  to  scorn.  But  when  I  accused 
him  of  misquoting  the  scriptures,  or  Dr.  Owen,  or  Mr.  Walker, 
or  other  writers,  (and  they  were  not  a  few,)  I  submitted  to 
the  drudgery  of  producing  Mr.  Campbell's  words,  and  compar- 
ing them  with  the  original.  How  gladly  would  he  have  done  the 
same,  if  1  had  ever  given  him  an  opportunity.  May  God  accept 
my  sincere  and  humble  thanks  for  preserving  me  from  such 
crimes,  and  for  giving  me  a  cause  which  needs  not  such  artifices 
to  support  it. 

The  most  important  object  of  Mr.  Campbell's  pamphlet  was 
to  shew  that  his  book,  which  is  such  a  lucrative  speculation  to 
him,  is  really  a  correct  account  of  our  debate.  On  this  subject  I 
would  observe,  that  he  has  a  very  unsatisfactory  way  of  proving 
the  correctness  of  his  reports,  by  the  objections  of  those  who  im- 
peach them.  Mr.  Walker  published  several  pages  of  exceptions 
to  Mr.  Campbell's  account  of  their  debate;  to  which  he  added  a 
dozen  pages  of  exceptions,  by  one  of  the  Moderators.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell would  persuade  the  public  that  these  **  altogether  would  not 
make  one  page  ;"  and  then  pretends  that  if  all  these  exceptions 
were  well  substantiated,  his  Report  "would  appear  from  Mr» 
B 


(      X      ) 

**  Walker's  own  treatise  to  be  a  correct  representation  of  the  con- 
"  troversy."  My  exposure  of  his  Report  in  our  case  gave  a  very 
great  number  of  particulars.  Of  these  he  speaks  as  follows,  viz. 
"  Even  when  all  the  particulars  he  gives  are  excepted,  still  the 
•'debate  as  published  by  me  is  worthy  of  the  title  and  credit 
**  which  it  has  received."  Now  let  us  examine  the  title  and 
credit  which  it  has  received,  and  compare  these  with  my  excep- 
tions. 

The  title  as  published  in  the  printed  Prospectus,  is'' A  De- 
"  bate  on  Baptism,  between  Mr.  W.  L  M*Calla,  of  Kentucky, 
"  and  A.  Campbell,  of  Virginia,  held  in  Washington,  Mason 
"  County,  Kentucky,  on  the  15th  of  October,  1823,  in  the  pre- 
"  sence  of  many  witnesses."  The  very  next  words  of  the  Prospec- 
tus promise  that  "  All  the  arguments  on  both  sides  shall  be 
*'  faithfully  and  impartially  detailed."  Nothing  less  than  this 
detail  would  make  it  the  debate  which  was  held  between  the 
parties  mentioned,  at  the  time  and  place  specified,  and  in  the 
presence  of  many  witnesses.  In  the  title  page  o\  his  book,  he 
is  still  more  particular,  informing  us  of  the  debate  which  he 
reports,  "  commencing  on  the  15th  and  terminating  on  the  21st 
[22nd]  Octob.  1823."  The  title  of  the  book,  then,  authorizes 
us  to  expect  a  faithful  and  impartial  detail  of  all  the  arguments 
which  I  delivered  in  H^ashingtonj  Kentucky,  in  a  number  of 
speeches,  which  commenced  on  the  I5ih  and  closed  on  the  2Qnd  of 
Octob,  1823,  lasting  seven  days;  for  the  sabbath  was  left  out. 
This  is  a  fair  account  of  the  title  of  his  book. 

Now  for  the  *'  credit  which  it  has  received. "  Mr.  Campbell's 
own  explanation  of  this  expression  is  to  be  found  in  the  certifi- 
cates of  his  witnesses,  who  profess  to  have  heard  the  debate,  as  it 
actually  took  place,  and  then  to  have  read  and  compared  his  print- 
ed report.  They  testify  that  so  far  as  they  ''^  heard  and  read,^- 
"^  Mr.  Campbell  has  given  in  his  publictition  of  the  debate,  both 
*'  in  substance  and  form,  fairly  and  substantially,  all  the  argu- 
"  ments  oft'ered  on  both  sides  of  the  question."  One  calls  it  "a 
Ft'ij.,  fair,  and  faithful  exhibition  of  all  the  prinripal  arguments 
and  topics.'^'*     Another  says  that  it  contains  "  all  the  matter  and 


(     xi     ) 

urguinent  advanced  by  both  disputants."  Another  adds,  "  very 
generally  the  phraseology  it&elf?^  Thus  much  f')r  the  credit  of 
the  book.  Now  add  this  to  the  title  ;  and  we  are  authorized  by 
'«  the  title  and  credit  which  it  has  received,"  to  expect,  that 
Mr.  Campbell's  book  will  furnish  a  detailed  report^  fidl^  faith- 
ful^ and  impartial^  in  respect  of  matter ^  forms  and.  phraseology ^ 
of  all  my  topics  and  arguments,  in  the  seven  days  debate  in  Ken- 
tucky, October,  1823. 

Mr.  Campbell  has  assured  us  that  this  is  the  real  character  of 
the  report,  even  after  admitting  all  the  exceptions  which  1  have 
made.  The  judgment  of  candour  will  consider  liim  as  virtually 
admitting  the  correctness  uf  my  exceptions,  in  fact,  since,  serious, 
numerous,  and  tangible  as  they  are,  he  has  not  overthrown  a.  sin- 
gle one  of  them  ;  but  reposes  himself  upon  their  supposed  harm- 
lessness.  Taking  my  objections,  therefore,  for  granted,  let  us 
compare  them  with  some  of  the  alledged  features  of  his  book, 
and  in  the  undisturbed  possession  of  which  he  thinks  that  my 
exceptions  leave  it.  This  must,  of  course,  be  done  with  great 
brevity. 

1.  He  promises  a  detailed  report.  My  objections,  which 
he  has  virtually  admitted,  prove  from  the  book  itself,  that  a 
great  part  of  it  is  professedly  an  abridged  report. 

2.  He  and  his  witnesses  call  it  a  full  report.  My  objections 
shew  from  his  own  book,  that  a  great  part  of  it  confessedly 
records  short  sums,  specimens  and  abstracts,  instead  o^  full 
speeches,  while  there  is  not  even  a  specimen  recorded  of  very 
much  that  I  said. 

3.  He  and  his  certificates  call  it  a  faithful  report  My 
objections,  which  he  has  virtually  admitted,  shew  very  nume- 
rous misstatements,  as  to  matters  of  fact;  they  shew  that  he  has 
written  for  me  in  his  dialect,  which  is,  in  some  instances,  foreign 
to  my  own,  and  foreign  to  correct  English;  they  shew  that  while 
using  his  own  language,  he  has  so  transposed  and  altered  my 
sentiments,  as  to  make  them  error,  contusion,  and  nonsense; 
they  shew  that  the  bod^  of  my  quotations  he  has  suppressed, 
while  he  has  partly  supplied  their  place,  by  greatly  and  stupidly 


(     xii     ) 

enlarging  others,  and  quoting  for  me,  from  books  which  I  had 
never  ramed,  nor  even  seen. 

4.  It  is  called  an  IMPARTIAL  report.  My  objections  shew  that 
he,  though  one  of  the  parties,  constitutes  himself  a  judge  of  the 
weight  of  argument ;  and  when  Mr.  Campbell  the  Judge,  has 
decided  against  the  relevancy  of  arguments  opposed  to  Mr. 
Campbell  the  Party,  he  then  forbids  Mr.  Campbell  the  Reporter 
to  record  them.     This  is  a  very  cheap  sort  of  impartiality. 

5.  He  and  his  witnesses  alledj^e  that  his  report  has  the  above 
qualities  in  respect  of  matter.  My  objections  prove  from  his 
printed  book  and  my  manuscript  notes,  that  the  matter  of  my 
speeches  is  not  in  his  report.  His  very  preface  expressly  pro- 
fesses to  abbreviate  whole  days  of  my  matter  as  my  publication 
shewed  at  large. 

6.  They  attach  the  above  qualities  to  his  report,  with  regard  to 
FORM  and  PHRASEOLOGY.  Surcly  these  men  must  know  that  there 
is  a  difference  in  the  form  of  a  speech  and  a  specimen.  They 
must  know  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  form  of  an  oration 
occupying  thirty  minutes,  and  an  abstract  occupying  three 
minutes.  Besides,  the  very  face  of  the  book  shews  that  these 
miniatures  ar»  given  in  his  own  phraseology,  and  my  admitted 
objections  prove  that  where  he  pretends  to  use  my  language,  he 
actually  substitutes  his  own  phraseology,  even  to  his  idiomatic 
violations  of  grammar. 

7.  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  witnesses  insist  upon  the  fulness  and 
(excellency  of  his  report,  in  relation  to  my  topics.  My  manu- 
script notes  and  my  actual  speeches  contained  seven  topics  :  but 
where  will  you  find  these  in  Mr.  Campbell's  book?  Where,  for 
instance,  will  you  find  the  history  of  the  mode  of  baptism?  My 
printed  objections,  which  he  has  virtually  admitted,  shew,  that 
he,  as  well  as  other  Baptists,  claimed  the  most  respectable 
Pedobaptists,  as  advocating  their  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism; 
my  objections  shew,  moreover,  that  these  claims  were  most  tri- 
umphantly refuted,  in  my  discussion  of  this  topic.  Perhaps  there 
was  not  another  part  of  the  debate,  in  which  the  gross  dishonesty 
of  my  Opponent,  and  Danvers,  and  other  Baptist  writers,  ap-r 


(     xiii     ) 

peared  in  a  more  disgraceful  light.  To  bury  the  remembrance  of 
such  an  exposure,  he  has  suppressed  the  whole  topic,  and  then 
persuaded  his  impartial,  disinterested  and  neutral  followers, 
such  as  Walker  Reid,  to  certify  that  his  report  is  '*  a  faithful 
representation  of  the  roFicsV^  I  would  not  be  the  writer  of  such 
a  declaration,  for  ten  thousand  times  all  the  votes,  and  all  the 
fees,  which  this  neutral  certificate  will  procure  its  author,  from 
the  dense  Baptist  population  around  him.  But  let  it  not  be 
thought  that  the  above  is  the  only  instance  of  dishonesty  on  this 
subject.  His  report  allows  one  page  to  my  fifth  topic  ;  he  al- 
lows another  page  to  my  sixth  and  seventh  topics,  which  are 
directly  called  for  by  his  challenge,  and  without  which,  I  am 
deprived  of  a  defence.  To  the  sixth  topic,  which  was  the  most 
important,  he  has  allowed  six  lines  of  that  one  page.  Thus  he 
has  entirely  suppressed  one  of  my  seven  topics,  and  half  of  the 
remaining  six,  he  has  reported  in  two  pages,  and  that  in  his  own 
language. 

8.  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  witnesses,  alledge,  moreover,  the 
excellency  and  fulness  of  his  report,  in  relation  to  my  argu- 
ments. This  leads  us  to  evidence  from  Mr.  Campbell's  own 
pen,  that  he  has  laid  violent  hands  upon  another  tojjic,  which  has 
not  yet  been  mentioned.  His  preface  informs  us  that  he  has 
indulged  in  "  abbreviating^^  *'  the  argument  from  ecclesiastic 
history."  This  argument  occupied  the  third  and  fourth  topics^ 
which  related  to  the  history  of  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  the 
history  of  the  mode.  One  of  these,  I  have  shewn,  he  has  entirely- 
suppressed  ;  and  he  expressly  confesses  that  he  has  abbreviated 
the  other. 

9.  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  witnesses  consider  his  book  as  « 
report  of  the  Debate  which  took  place  between  him  and  myself, 
in  Washington,  Kentucky,  on  the  15th — to — 22nd  days  of  Octo- 
ber, 1823.  If  it  be  so,  it  must  give  my  speeches,  whether  vulgar 
or  polished,  relevant  or  irrelevant,  during  all  the  seven  days, 
on  all  my  seven  topics,  relating  to  the  nature  or  effects  of  baptism, 
and  embracing  the  arguments  from  scripture  and  from  ecclesias- 
tical history.  Instead  of  this,  we  find  one  topic  entirely  suppress- 


xiv     ) 

ed,  three  others  occupying  two  pages,  and  a  fifth  abbreviated,]} j 
the  impartial  guillotine  of  the  opposite  party.  Two  out  of  tlie 
seven  still  remain.  These  1  have  exposed  in  a  printed  volume 
of  objections,  not  one  of  which  he  has  refuted,  and  the  validity 
of  which  he  has  virtually  admitted,  by  declining  to  make  any 
particular  exception,  and  by  asserting  that  when  my  objections 
are  admitted,  his  report  "  is  worthy  of  the  title  and  credit 
which  t  has  received.''  I  have  shewn  that  if  these  objections 
be  valid,  they  will  prove,  that,  in  reporting  me,  his  work  is  a 
mass  of  misstatements,  Campbellisms,  transpositions,  supple- 
ments, interpolations,  suppressions,  and  alterations.  The  evi- 
dence of  this  is  found  not  only  in  my  notes,  but  abundantly  in 
his  own  book,  which,  of  itself,  is  ground  enough  for  contradicting 
all  his  certificates.  Even  when  he  and  his  witness  agree  in 
matter  of  fact,  it  is  amusing  to  see  how  they  will  differ  as  to  the 
reason  of  the  fact.  After  all  that  has  been  said  about  the  fulness 
of  the  report,  Mr.  Campbell,  and  his  witness  Mr.  Ryan,  can- 
not help  conceding  that  much  is  omitted  j  that  is,  that  it  is  not 
full,  unless  it  can  be  full,  while  nine-tenths  are  wanting.  Each 
of  them  has  his  own  reason  for  this  great  omission.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell attributes  it  to  the  irrelevancy  of  such  arguments  as  that 
which  is  drawn  from  ecclesiastical  history.  Mr.  Ryan  will  not 
agree  that  this  argument  was  suppressed  at  all,  but  insists  that 
every  thing  was  reported,  *•  except  the  leaving  out  of  Mr. 
M*Calla's  vulgar,  abusive,and  ungentlemanly  language,  together 
with  his  base  misquotations  of  the  scriptures  and  Robinson's 
History  of  Baptism,"  of  which  vulgarity  and  dishonesty,  neither  he 
nor  any  other  person  can  give  a  single  instance ! !  These  cannot 
be  reconciled. 

When  commencing  this  review,  it  was  my  design  to  examine 
Mr.  Campbell's  neutral  witnesses,  a  little  more  particularly. 
This  may  possibly  be  done  at  some  future  period.  At  present 
it  seems  unnecessary.  So  perfect  an  imposture  cannot  long 
abide  the  test.  The  forgery  of  a  Unitarian  Baptist  cannot 
always  be  supported  by  the  mere  general  ex  parte  certificate!^ 


(     XV     ) 

of  Unitarians,  and  the  sons  and  brothers  of  Baptist  preach- 
ers, who  choose  to  call  themselves  neutrals,  because  they 
belong  to  no  church;  especially  while  these  certificates 
contradict  themselves  and  one  another,  and  are  obviously  op- 
posed to  the  very  face  of  the  record  about  which  they  testify. 
God  will  take  care  of  his  own  truth  and  his  own  people,  and  on 
him  do  I  rely,  in  Jesus'  name. 


1 


DEPENCK 

OF 


PEDOBAPTISM. 


Friends,  Fellow- citizens,  and  Fellow- Christians, 

The  possession  of  a  rational,  responsible  and 
immortal  nature,  should  ever  make  us  view  religion  as 
of  paramount  importance.  Among  innumerable  dangers 
of  fatal  error,  the  enjoyment  of  a  full  revelation,  an  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith  and  practice,  is  a  blessing  for  which  we 
can  never  be  sufficiently  thankful.  This  blessed  volume 
contains  the  instruction  of  the  Divine  Father,  sealed  by 
the  blood  of  the  Divine  Son,  and  applied  to  the  heart 
by  the  Divine  Spirit.  Depending  upon  the  grace  of 
the  only  true  God,  we  should  endeavour  to  give  to 
all  his  doctrines,  precepts,  and  ordinances,  that  inherent 
and  relative  weight  which  they  claim  in  the  inspired 
volume.  Our  views  of  the  Christian  sacraments,  as  to 
their  nature,  relations,  and  conseqiiences,  are  thought 
defective  and  erroneous,  by  some  who  are  Eminent  for 
piety  and  intelligence.  Yet  while  they  condemn  us,  they 
accuse  each  other  also.  Mr.  Booth,  an  advocate  for 
strict  communion,  says  concerning  his  Baptist  brethren 
"  who  plead  for  free  communiouj^'  that  they  "  treat 
''  the  ordinance  [of  baptism]  as  if  it  were  a  mere  circum- 
"  stance  in  divine  worship;  an  indifferent  thing;  and  dis- 
•^  pensAith  it  just  as  occasion  requires.''  ^^The  Lord's 


(     18     ) 

^^  supper,  however,  is  considered  and  treated  by  them  in 
''  a  different  manner;  for  they  speak  of  it  as  a  delightful, 
^^  an  edifying,  an  important  institution.  But  what 
^^  authority  have  they  for  thus  distinguishing  between 
"  two  appointments  of  the  same  Lord,  intended  for  the 
^^  same  persons,  of  equal  continuance  in  the  Christian 
^*  church,  and  alike  required  of  proper  subjects? 
'^  They  have  indeed  the  example  of  some  Socinians,  and 
''  the  venerable  sanction  of  the  whole  Council  of  Trent: 
^^  for  the  title  of  one  chapter  in  the  records  of  that  coun- 
^^  cil,  is,  '  Concerning  the  excellence  of  the  most  holy 
'^  Eucharist,  above  the  rest  of  the  sacraments.'  ^\a)  Con- 
cerning this  preference  of  one  sacrament  to  another, 
Mr.  Booth  asks,  "  Can  such  a  conduct  be  pious,  humble, 
or  rational?''  Yet  impious,  proud,  and  irrational  as  this 
conduct  may  be,  it  is  feared  that  my  Opponent  has  been 
guilty  of  it.  It  is  true  that  he  does  not,  like  the  free- 
communion  Baptists,  prefer  the  eucharist  to  baptism, 
but  he  does  what  is  equally  condemnable  in  Mr.  Booth's 
esteem,  he  gives  baptism  a  decided  preeminence  over 
the  eucharist,  if  not  over  faith  and  obedience.  "  Baptism," 
says  he  ^*is  an  ordinance  of  the  greatest  importance  and  of 
*^  momentous  significance.  Never  was  there  an  ordinance 
'^  of  so  great  import  or  design."  ''  He  [Christ]  does  not 
^'  say,  he  that  believeth  and  keeps  my  commands  shall 
*'  be  saved :  but  he  saith  '  he  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
''  tized  shall  be  saved.'  He  placeth  baptism  on  the  right 
^'  hand  of  faith."  "  To  every  believer  therefore,  bap- 
^^  tism  is  a  formal  and  personal  remission,  or  purgation 

(c)  Booth's  Apology,  pp.  177,  178.  London  Edition  oBl2. 


(     19     ) 

'^  of  sins.  The  believer  never  has  his  sins  formally  wash- 
'^  ed  away  or  remitted  until  he  is  baptized.  The  water 
"  has  no  efficacy  but  what  God's  appointment  gives  it, 
^'  and  he  has  made  it  sufficient  for  this  purpose. "(6) 
He  ''  said  that  baptism  is  inseparably  connected  with 
*^  a  formal  pardon  of  sin:  and  spoke  very  boastingly  of 
"  having  never,  for  an  hour,  felt  guilt  of  conscience, 
''  since  his  baptism,  "(c)  Those  who  hold  such  a  religion  as 
this,  will  always  harbour  animosity  against  pious  Pedo- 
baptists,  as  naturally  as  the  Western  Indians  opposed  the 
venerable  Zeisberger,  the  Moravian  Missionary,  ^^in 
"  consequence  chiefly  of  the  insinuations  of  some  Pagan 
^'  teachers,  who  had  strenuoiisly  recommended  the  use 
^^  of  emetics,  as  a  speedy  and  infallible  method  of  cleans- 
^'  ing  from  sin."(fl^j  No  doubt,  there  was  many  a  de- 
luded mortal  among  them,  who  ''  spoke  very  boastingly 
^'  of  having  never,  for  an  hour,  felt  guilt  of  conscience, 
since  his''  vomiting.  How  different  is  this  Pagan  stuff 
from  the  scriptural  account  of  Baptism  !  Paul  says 
^'  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel."(e)  If  he  had  viewed  it  as  ray  Opponent  does,  he 
would  have  considered  the  work  of  baptizing  to  be  the 
most  important  object  of  his  mission.  But  he  here  uses 
a  negative  as  the  strongest  contrast,  to  show  its  great 
inferiority  to  the  essentials  of  Christianity. 

When  I  speak  of  the  relative  diminutiveness  of  the 
tangible  sacraments,  I  would  not  be  understood  as  insinu- 

{b)  Campbell's  Spurious  Debate  in  Kentucky,  pp.  117.  135. 
(c)  Lowry's  Notes,  given  to  me. 

(g?)  Broi^l  Hi ston- of  Missions,  Vol.  l.p.  435.  Philadelphia  Edition  of 
1816,         W  (<?)  1  Cor.  i.  17, 


(     20     ) 

ating  that  they  are  unimportant.  Far  be  it  from  me  to 
despise  such  valuable  privileges !  May  my  soul  ever 
rejoice  in  that  heavenly  condescension  which  has  be- 
stowed them  !  Our  Fathers  did  well  in  reproving  the 
Man  of  sin  for  robbing  the  laity  .of  the  eucharistic  cup  ; 
and  they  did  as  well  in  reproving  certain  Pseudo-refor- 
mers for  robbing  infants  of  the  baptismal  seal.  Since 
the  Pedobaptist  world  is  arraigned  before  the  public, 
under  the  heaviest  charges,  and  since  I  am  providential- 
ly called  to  confront  our  bold  Accuser,  the  task  is  under- 
taken, with  a  trembling  cheerfulness,  and  in  humble 
reliance  upon  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  without  whose  help 
I  can  do  nothing. 

The  contested  proposition,  for  the  discussion  of  which 
we  have  met  on  this  occasion,  is  contained  in  a  general 
printed  challenge,  first  uttered  by  my  Opponent,  several 
years  ago,  at  the  close  of  a  debate  which  he  had  with 
a  Pedobaptist  Minister  in  another  state,  and  afterward 
printed  for  general  circulation,  in  his  professed  report 
of  that  debate,  which  I  have  in  my  hand.  In  that 
challenge  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  '*  Infant-sprink- 
^'  ling  is  a  human  tradition,  and  injurious  to  the  well 
^'  being  of  society,  religious  and  political."  As  I 
plead,  7iot  guilty,  we  join  issue  upon  the  very  words 
of  the  accusation  which  you  have  just  heard. 

To  the  language  of  the  proposition  I  at  first  objected, 
in  part,  because  the  term  infant-sprinhling  was  in- 
tended as  a  sneer.  If  we  were  to  call  them  Dipperaj 
and  call  their  baptism  Ducking,  they  would  probably 
think  that  a  sneer  was  intended :  yet  they  ^uld  not 


have  more  reason  for  such  a  suspicion,  than  we  havf 


•: 


I 


(  21  ) 

in  the  present  case.  They  call  themselves  Baptists, 
and  not  Divers,  Plungers,  or  Dippers.  As  convenience 
requires  that  they  should  have  a  name,  we  allow  them 
the  one  which  they  assume  ;  but  we  do  it  from  courtesy, 
and  not  because  we  believe  that  they  are  Baptizers 
more  than  ourselves.  If  the  peculiarities  of  their  system 
were  necesary  to  make  a  man  a  Baptizer,  (which  is  the 
original  meaning  of  the  word  Baptist,)  then  the  precursor 
of  our  Lord  should  not  be  called  John  the  Baptist,  or 
John  the  Baptizer^  since  there  is  satisfactory  evidence 
that  he  baptized  infants,  and  that  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring.  But  as  the  Author  of  the  accusation  now 
under  discussion  was  not  willing  to  remove  or  change 
the  offensive  expression,  iy\f ant- sprinkling,  all  that' 
we  wish  is,  to  have  its  meaning  clearly  settled.  This 
is  done  effectually  by  the  context,  in  which  he  says, 
"  It  is  my  time  to  give  an  invitation  or  challenge  to 
"  any  Pedo-baptist  minister  y^  and  again,  "  I  feel  dis- 
''  posed  to  meet  any  Pedo-baptist  minister,  of  any  de- 
^'  nomination,'^  &c.  As  the  challenge,  therefore,  is  di- 
rected to  Pedo-baptists,  it  is  evident  that  Pedo- 
baptism  is  to  be  the  subject  of  discussion,  and  that  this 
is  what  is  meant  by  infant-sprinkling.  The  position, 
then,  which  he  has  engaged  to  maintain  is,  that  infant- 
baptism,  as  practised  by  us,  in  the  mode  of  sprinkling, 
pouring,  or  washing,  is  a  factitious  and  pernicious 
institution.  In  his  publications  he  has  endeavoured  to 
establish  this  general  charge,  by  many  particulars  of  a 
very  odious  character.  If  they  be  correct,  we  must 
be  the  enemies  of  God  and  man :  if  they  be  incorrect, 
he  must  a   false  Accuser  and  a  bitter    Adversarv   of 


(     22     ) 

Christ  and  his  Church.  If  he  has  published  more  than 
he  then  meant,  or  more  than  he  is  willing  now  to  pro- 
secute, he  is  present  to  declare  it.  If  no  such  declara- 
tion is  made,  you  will,  of  course,  demand  good  evidence 
in  support  of  such  formidable  charges. 

Against  such  allegations,  by  whomsoever  brought,  I 
w^illingly  stand  on  the  defensive:  against  such  affirmations, 
by  whomsoever  made,  I  willingly  espouse  the  negative. 
In  so  doing,  I  would  endeavour,  conscientiously  and 
scripturally,  to  defend  a  command  of  God,  and  not  those 
adventitious  errors  which  Papists  or  Protestants  have 
engrafted  on  it.  If  will -worship,  self- righteousness  and 
superstition,  schism  and  heresy,  anarchy,  oppression, 
and  persecution  are  ever  found  connected  with  our 
system,  I  can  only  reply  that  this  is  an  unnatural  con- 
nexion, since  these  evils  are  from  hell,  and  infant-bap- 
tism is  from  heaven.  If  my  Opponent  mean  to  prove 
that  the  use  of  the  cross,  and  of  oil  and  wine,  and  milk 
and  honey  in  baptism,  is  a  human  tradition,  I  have  no 
objection:  but  while  this  is  made  out  undeniably,  it 
will  also  appear  that  infant-baptism  belongs  to  what  he 
calls  "  the  traditions  of  the  Apostles,''  and  that  this 
Apostolical  tradition  or  injunctio?!  is  no  more  answerable 
for  its  illegitimate  connexions,  than  the  scriptures  are 
answerable  for  destroying  souls,  when,  through  human 
depravity,  they  become  a  savour  of  death  unto  death: 
or  than  adult-baptism  is  answerable  for  the  innumerable 
evils  with  which  it  is  accompanied.  And  let  it  be 
remembered  that  this  is  practised  by  all  Pedobaptists ; 
for  our  system  is  to  baptize  believers  and  thdr  seed. 
Christian    baptism,    thus   administered,  has   sometimes 


(     23     ) 

been  accompanied  with  much  evil,  as  is  the  bible  in 
which  it  is  commanded  ;  and  infidels  charge  all  this 
evil  upon  God's  word  and  ordinances ;  whether  right- 
eously or  not,  judge  ye. 

Whether  infant-baptism  be  right  or  wrong,  useful 
or  hurtful,  may  be  decided  without  any  other  evidence 
than  the  simple  word  of  God.  This  proof  is  the  best, 
because  it  is  certain  and  infallible.  That  evidence 
which  is  derived  from  uninspired  writings,  whether 
doctrinal  or  historical,  though  strong,  is  nevertheless 
inferior.  It  would  save  much  time  and  strength  to 
omit  it  altogether.  I  mention  this  because  my  Opponent 
has  already  asserted,  more  than  once,  that  the  true 
church,  from  the  Apostles'  days  to  the  present  time, 
were  Baptises.  Although  the  challenge  will  certainly 
allow  him  this  latitude,  he  would  do  me  a  favour  by  con- 
fining himself  to  the  scriptures,  at  least  in  relation  to  the 
subject  and  mode  of  baptism.  Its  injurious  effects  he 
may  prove  in  any  way  that  he  pleases:  Let  him  produce 
scripture  only,  to  show  that  infant-baptism  is  forbidden, 
and  that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  and  then  he  shall 
have  proved  that  "  infant- sprinkling  is  a  human  tradi- 
tion." But  reasonable  as  this  wish  is,  he  intimates  that 
it  cannot  be  gratified.  In  addition,  then,  to  infallible 
scriptural  evidence  in  favour  of  our  subject  and  mode 
of  baptism,  I  shall  be  required  to  produce  what  might 
be  called  uninspired  presumptive  or  probable  evidence 
to  the  same  points.  I  shall  have  to  show  that  the  Chris- 
tian Church  has  always  baptized  infants,  and  that  it  has 
never  considered  submersion  essential  to  this  ordinance. 
This  will  have  to  be  followed  by  evidence  that  the  Bap- 


(     24     ) 

tists  of  England  and  America,  instead  of  being  born  in 
the  first  century  (as  my  Opponent  has  repeatedly  assert- 
ed,) had  their  origin  in  the  sixteenth.  The  topics  of 
discussion,  then,  which  my  Opponent  has  cut  out  for 
me,  are  the  following ;  viz. 

1.  The  scriptural  subject  of  baptism. 

2.  The  scriptural  mode. 

3.  The  history  of  the  subject. 

4.  The  history  of  the  mode. 

5.  Th^  history  of  Anabaptism. 

6.  The  effects  of  the  subject. 

7.  The  effects  of  the  mode. 

In  discussing  these  topics,  while  I  would  avoid  shrink- 
ing from  the  duty  of  defending  the  truth,  I  would  res- 
pect the  feelings  of  pious  Baptists,  and  avoid  unnecessary 
recriminations  against  those  mistaken  Christians  of  that 
denomination,  who,  uncharitably,  unrighteously,  and 
untruly,  make  common  cause  with  our  Accuser,  in 
slandering  their  brethren  for  obeying  a  divine  command. 
To  the  true  church,  God  has  said,  '^  No  weapon  that  is 
^^  formed  against  thee  shall  prosper;  and  every  tongue 
^^  that  shall  rise  against  thee  in  judgment  thou  shalt  con- 
^^  demn.  This  is  the  heritage  of  the  servants  of  the  Lord, 
^^  and  their  righteousness  is  of  me,  saith  the  Lord.^^ 
This  we  believe.  In  the  exercise  of  a  conscience 
void  of  offence  towards  God  and  man,  we  are  willing  to 
take  shelter  under  this  promise,  for  protection  against 
the  accusations  of  our  present  Adversary,  and  of  all  those 
who  support  him. 

When  a  man  brings  such  serious  charges  as  those 


(     25     ) 

which  are  now  under  consideration,  he  should  have 
some  plan  of  attack.  In  opening  the  cause,  which  my 
Accuser  has  professed  to  do,  he  should,  as  far  as  time 
allowed,  give  us  some  general  view  of  the  law  and  the 
testimony;  something  to  which  a  reply  may  be  made. 
But,  in  what  he  calls  the  opening  of  the  debate,  he  has 
not  laid  before  you  as  much  as  can  be  felt  between  the 
thumb  and  finger.  His  whole  speech  was  occupied 
in  a  laboured  effort  to  make  his  audience  benevolent,  at- 
tentive, and  docile,  according  to  Cicero's  instructions. 
As  I  did  not  come  here  to  set  myself  off  by  rhetorical 
arts,  but  to  recommend  religion,  by  defending  its  sacred 
institutions,  and  its  pious  professors,  I  have  been  compel- 
led, though  in  the  negative,  virtually  to  open  the  cause 
myself.  I  shall  therefore  proceed  immediately  to  the 
discussion  of  those  topics  \yhich  my  Opponent's  challenge 
and  present  determination  force  upon  our  attention^ 
and  which  have  been  already  enumerated  in  my  division. 

TOPIC  I. 

THE  SCRIPTURAL  SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM. 

On  this  subject,  my  opinion  is  accurately  expressed 
in  the  following  words  : 

The  Scriptures  consider  infants  as  suitable,  though  not 
exclusive  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism, 

The  challenge  asserts  that  ''  Infant-sprinkling  is  a 

human  tradition.''  My  reply  is,  that  the  Scriptures  con- 
D 


(     26     ) 

sider  infants  as  suitable,  though  not  exclusive  subjects 
of  Christian  baptism.  Instead  of  this  proposition,  soKie 
would  state  that  Pedobaptism  is  a  divine  institution.  To 
avoid  repeated  and  unnecessary  distinctions  and  circum- 
locutions, I  often  use  this  declaration  myself.  But  as  a 
proposition  for  discussion,  it  is  thought  to  be  deficient 
in  accuracy.  We  believe  that  adult  baptism  is  a  divine 
institution,  and  that  female  baptism  is  a  divine  institution, 
as  well  as  male  baptism :  and  so  we  might  appear  to 
multiply  institutions  according  to  the  ages,  sexes,  colours, 
and  conditions  of  mankind.  Each  of  these  has  the 
appearance  of  excluding  the  rest.  Of  this  appearance. 
Baptist  controversialists  take  an  unfair  advantage.  When 
we  advocate  infant-baptism  as  a  divine  institution,  they 
try  to  make  the  world  believe  that  we  thereby  reject 
adult  baptism,  whereas  we  hold  and  practice  both  :  when 
the  Bible  teaches  adult  baptism,  they  conclude  that  it 
rejects  infant  baptism,  whereas  the  Bible  teaches,  and 
the  Apostles  practised  both.  To  shut  the  door  against 
such  quibbles,  my  proposition  formally  admits  that 
infants  are  not  the  exclusive  subjects  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, while  it  asserts  that  they  are  suitable  subjects  of 
this  divine  institution,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
God's  word. 

But  now  that  we  are  approaching  the  lively  oracles, 
my  Opponent  begins  to  dread  an  appeal  to  this  irrefraga- 
ble testimony.  He  insists  upon  my  passing  this  over, 
and  engaging  in  a  priori  reasonings,  which  he  knows 
would  be  much  more  inefficient  in  our  defence  than 
inspired  authority.  For  me  to  quote  scripture,  he 
insinuates,  would  be  only  a  fatiguing  loss  of  breath  and 


I 


(     27     ) 

waste  of  time.  His  words  are  these;,  viz  :  '^  Before  we 
''  spend  our  breath,  waste  our  time,  or  fatigue  our  bodies 
"  in  this  discussion,  let  iis  know,  cui  bono,  for  what 
^'  good,  or  what  benefit  to  infants  we  contend."  "  We 
^^  know  of  no  benefit,"  says  he,  ^^that  could  be  conferred 
''  on  them  by  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of  water  upon 
^'  their  faces. "(/)  Perhaps  my  Opponent  knows  that 
these  questions  are  often  asked  concerning  his  bap- 
tism as  well  as  ours,  and  with  as  much  force.  And 
Booth  complains  that  some  eminent  Baptists  them- 
selves seem  to  doubt  the  utility  of  adult  immersion, 
and  thereby  to  approach  that  sect  which  denies  the 
utility  and  obligation  of  either  baptism  or  the  Lord's 
supper.  (^)  It  is  true  that  my  Opponent  professes  to 
have  discovered  great  utility  in  adult  immersion;  it 
purges  from  sin.  In  this  he  excels  the  Hemerobaptists, 
who  cleanse  themselves  from  all  sin  by  a  daily  immersion. 
But  Bishop  Hobart  is  up  with  him  even  here ;  for  he 
believes  that  infant  baptism  is  regeneration;  and  both  are 
about  as  wise  as  those  Western  Indians  who  believed 
that  their  sins  were  purged  by  emetics. 

In  demanding  evidence  of  utility  in  the  threshhold  of 
this  discussion,  my  Accuser  opposes  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, inspired  and  uninspired,  heretical  and  orthodox^ 
Baptist  and  Pedobaptist.  Matt.  v.  19.  shews  that  the 
least  of  God's  commandments  is  binding,  whether  we 
think  it  useful  or  not.  In  admirable  consistency  with 
this,  Booth  quotes  from  Stapfer  the  following  sentiments 
of  Orobius,  a  learned  Jew,  viz.    "  The  ritual  Jaw  de- 

( /)  Debate,  p .  46.  {g)  Booth's  Apology,  p.  \Hl. 


(     28     ) 

''  pends  upon  the  will  of  the  Legislator  only  ;  sometimes, 
''  or  generally,  no  foundation  for  it  being  discovered  in 
'^  natural  reason.  But  it  does  not  obtain  on  that  account 
"  an  inferior  degree  of  perfection,  (supposing  the  wis- 
^^  dom  and  goodness  of  the  Legislator  to  be  infinite,) 
''  but  ought  rather  to  be  esteemed  of  a  higher  and 
^^  sublimer  order :  it  being  indeed  supposed  that  an  infi- 
^'  nitely  good  and  wise  God  can  never  prescribe  to  man 
^'  laws  which  are  vain  and  unsuitable.  In  proportion  as  the 
^'  reason  of  them  is  more  hidden  to  us,  so  should  we  the 
"  more  believe  that  it  belongs  to  the  secret  of  divine 
^^  wisdom:  so  that  we  should  not  either  curiously  or 
''  philosophically  scrutinize,  but  be  in  obedient  subjec- 
^^  tion  to  his  command,  by  which  we  may  shew  our 
^'  love,  and  a  becoming  reverence  to  the  Supreme  Crea- 
''  tor :  believing,  with  the  whole  heart,  all  things  which 
''  his  wisdom,  infinitely  worthy,  exceedingly  good,  and 
^'  most  perfect,  proposes  to  be  observed  by  us,  whether 
''  [or  not]  that  wisdom  can  or  will  dispense  or  intermit 
''  for  some  occasion.  And  it  belongs  to  a  more  signal 
''  obedience  to  observe  those  things,  than  such  com- 
'^  mandments  of  God  as  we  discover  to  be  founded  in 
''  our  reason :  for  such  as  these,  even  if  God  had  not 
''  enjoined,  men  may  know  and  observe,  as  many  of 
''  the  Gentiles   have  done,  without  any  view   to   the 

"  authority  of  God.'' But  merely  from  their  opinion 

of  their  cui  bono. 

On  this  subject,  even  Dr.  Priestly  is  more  correct 
than  my  Opponent.  As  quoted  by  Booth,  he  declares 
that  "Every  divine  command  ought  certainly  to  be 
"  implicitly  complied  with,  even  though  we  should  not 


(     29     ) 

''  be  able  to  discern  the  reason  of  it." ^That  is,  the 

cui  bono  of  it.  "  In  things  of  external  appointment," 
(says  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  quoted  by  Booth,)  '*  and 
'^  mere  positive  institution,  where  we  cannot,  as  in 
''  matters  of  natural  and  moral  duty,  argue  concerning 
"  the  natural  reason  and  ground  of  the  obligation,  and 
"  the  original  necessity  of  the  thing  itself;  we  have 
'^  nothing  to  do  but  to  obey  the  positive  command.  God 
-^  is  infinitely  better  able  than  we  to  judge  of  the  pro- 
"  priety  and  usefulness  [the  cui  boni]  of  the  things,  he 
''  institutes ;  and  it  becomes  us  to  obey  with  humility 
"  and  reverence."  The  same  author  quotes  Bishop 
Hall  as  saying,  "  It  hath  been  ever  God's  wont,  by 
"  small  precepts  to  prove  men's  dispositions.  Obedience 
"  is  as  well  tried  in  a  trifle  as  in  the  most  important 
''  charge :  yea,  so  much  more,  as  the  thing  required 
"  is  less:  for  oftentimes  those  who  would  be  careful 
"  in  main  affairs,  think  they  may  neglect  the  smallest. 
''  What  command  so  ever  we  receive  from  God,  or  our 
''  superiors,  we  must  not  scan  the  weight,  [the  cui  bono'] 
"  of  the  thing,  but  the  authority  of  the  commander." 
The  same  Baptist  writer  quotes  Witsius  as  saying  that, 
"  One  who  resolves  to  obey  God  in  some  things  only, 
*^  but  excepts  others,  which  he  does  [or  not]  according 
"  to  his  own  judgment  [of  their  cui  bono,]  he  does  not 
^^  serve  God,  but  pleases  himself.  The  true  ground  of 
^'  obedience  is  the  authority  of  him  who  commands: 
"  which,  as  it  is  the  same  in  all  precepts,  all  then,  it  is 
^'  concluded,  must  be  of  equal  obligation." 

These    are  all  Baptist  authorites,    because   adopted 


(     30     ) 

by  Booth(/i)  in  support  of  his  sentiments^  which  he 
expresses  in  his  own  words  as  follows,  viz.  "  As  in  the 
''  great  concerns  of  religious  worship,  nothing  should 
"  be  done  that  is  not  required  by  Jehovah  ;  and  as  the 
"  lawfulness  of  all  positive  rites  depends  entirely  on 
^^  their  divine  Author  and  his  institution ;  so  he  who 
''  complies  with  some,  and  neglects  others  that  are 
"  equally  commanded  and  equally  known,  may  please 
^^  himself,  but  he  does  not  obey  the  Lord/'  "  For  it  is 
''  not  the  manifest  excellence,  or  the  great  utility 
'^  [the  cui  bono]  of  any  divine  appointment,  that  is  the 
"  true  reason  of  our  submission  to  it;  but  the  authority 
^^  of  him  that  commands." 

You  have  already  perhaps  observed  that  my  Opponent 
himself  advocates  this  same  doctrine  at  some  times, 
though  he  contradicts  it  at  other  times.  He  has  quoted 
a  passage  from  Bishop  Hoadly,  in  which  he  says,  "  All 
''  positive  duties  depend  [not  upon  the  question  of 
^'  cni  bono,  but]  entirely  upon  the  will  and  declaration 
^^  of  the  person -who  institutes  or  ordains  them,  with 
''  respect  to  the  real  design  and  end  of  them,  and  con- 
"  sequently  to  the  due  manner  of  performing  them.'" 
To  the  same  purpose  he  has  quoted  largely  from  Bishop 
Taylor,  who  says  that  ^^The  will  of  the  law-giver, 
''  [and  not  the  question  of  cui  bono]  is  all  the  reason 
^'  for  obedience. "(/)  But  in  the  debate  with  Mr. 
Walker  we  have  my  Opponent's  own  words  to  this 
eflfect    as    follows;    viz.    ^^ Having  now    distinguished 


(A)  They  may  be  found  in  the  following  pages  of  his  Apolog}-.  71. 
100.  179.  180. 
(0  Debate  pp.  69.  70. 


(     31      ) 

*^  positive  arid  moral  institutions,  I  proceed  to  shew  that 
^^  on  no  account  whatsoever  in  positive  requirements, 
"  are  we  to  attempt  to  reason  upon  the  expediency 
''  [the  cui  bojio]  of  the  things  enjoined,  but  implicitly 
'^  to  obey  on  all  occasions.  When  Eve,  the  mother  of 
'^  us  all,  began  to  reason  on  the  expediency  fthe  cui 
"  bono"]  of  eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  she  began  to  sin. 
^'  She  reasoned  that  as  the  fruit  of  that  tree  was  pleasant 
''  to  the  sight,  and  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise, 
'^  there  could  be  no  harm  in  eating  of  it;  consequently 
'^  she  concluded  to  taste  it.  Of  the  incorrectness  of 
'^  her  \_cui  bono~\  reasoning,  and  of  her  incapacity,  even 
^'  when  in  Eden,  to  draw  a  correct  inference,  when 
"  reasoning  on   a  positive  institution,  we  have,   alas ! 

''  a  melancholy   proofs as   we    have    in  her 

''  cui  bono  descendant  in  this  debate. (^) 

Often  as  my  Opponent  contradicts  himself,  he  hardly 
ever  does  it  without  what  he  considers  good  policy.  He 
published  a  challenge,  to  shew  his  courage ;  and  after- 
ward denied  it,  to  throw  the  odium  upon  his  Op- 
ponent. Why  did  he  say  so  much  in  his  letters,  about 
his  holding  the  negative  of  our  question  ?  Because  it 
afforded  what  he  thought  a  plausible  pretext  for  demand- 
ing the  closing  speech.  Why  does  he  now  urge  as 
strongly  that  he  holds  the  affirmative  of  the  very  same 
question?  The  Moderators,  to  whom  he  has  appealed, 
can  answer,  that  this  is  made  a  pretext  for  demanding, 
that,  as  he  has  professedly  opened  the  debate,  I  should 
not  be  permitted  to  choose  my  own  plan  of  defence,  but 

{k)  Debate  with  Mr.  W.  p.  46.  On  the  same  page  in  his  2nd  debate 
we  find  his  cui  bono  contradiction. 


(     32     ) 

be  compelled  to  leave  the  solid  evidence  upon  which 
my  cause  rests,  and  follow  the  ignis  fatuus  of  his  decla- 
mation. Again;  why  is  it  that  he  insists  so  strongly 
upon  the  good  old  doctrine,  that  we  must  unreservedly 
obey  every  command  of  God,  without  waiting  to  discuss 
its  expediency,  or  its  cui  bono  ?  Because  he  hopes  to 
pervert  this  truth  to  the  sophistical  conclusion  that 
''  nothing  short  of  [what  he  means  by]  an  express  divine 
command  can  authorize"  infant  baptism:  as  if  an  itn- 
plicit  command  were  not  binding  at  all !  But  when  I 
approach  the  subject  too  closely,  and  seem  in  danger  of 
producing  a  divine  command,  he  complains  that  by 
such  a  course  we  should  only  "  spend  our  breath,  waste 
our  time,  and  fatigue  our  bodies.'^  Why  does  he  then 
insist,  in  opposition  to  his  former  principles,  concerning 
positive  institutions,  that  we  must  first  examine  the  ques- 
tion of  expediency,  ^^cui  bono,  for  what  good,  or 
[/or]  what  benefit  to  infants"  is  this  institution  intend- 
ed? These  questions  you  can  answer. 

I  wish  you  to  keep  in  mind  the  proposition  with  which 
I  have  set  out,  on  the  scriptural  subject  of  baptism.  It 
is,  that  '^  the  scriptures  consider  infants  as  suitable, 
though  not  exclusive  subjects  of  Christian  baptism.^^ 
Baptist  polemics  generally  take  it  for  granted  that  this 
is  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things ;  and  think  tliat  in- 
fant baptism  necessarily  rejects  adult  baptism,  and  that 
adult  baptism  necessarily  excludes  the  other,  as  if  these 
were  two  distinct  and  irreconcilea])le  baptisms.  Booth 
says,    ^^  If  infant    sprinkling  be   a   human  invention, 

^*  disown  it but  if  it  be  from  heaven,  embrace 

"'Mt and  lay  the,  other  absolutely  aside,  as  des- 


I 


(     33     ) 

^^  titute  of  a  divine  warrant;  for  as  there  is  but  one  God 
"  and  one  faith,  so  there  is  but  one  baptism  y  I)  This 
writer  is  much  in  the  habit  of  illustrating  the  sacra- 
ments of  baptism  and  the  eucharist  by  a  reference  to 
circumcision  and  the  Passover. (m)  We  all  know  that 
there  was  only  one  circumcision  as  well  as  one  baptism. 
How  then  would  it  look  to  reason  on  the  former,  as  he 
has  done   on  the  latter?    If  infant  circumcision   be  a 

human    tradition,    disown   it but  if  it  be    from 

heaven,   embrace  it and   lay  adult  circumcision 

absolutely   aside for  as    there    is    but  one    God 

and  one  faith,  so  there  is  but  one  circumcision  !!  !  Yes, 
there  was  but  one  circumcision  ;  yet  it  was  administered 
to  adults  and  infants :  so  there  is  but  one  baptism,  which, 
like  circumcision,  is  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  one 
faith ;  yet  this  also  is  scripturally  administered  to  believ- 
ers and  their  seed. 

Scriptural  statements  of  the  qualifications  of  adult 
subjects  are  always  quoted  on  this  point.  "He  that  be- 
"  lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved :  but  he  that 
"  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'^  "  Go  ye  therefore 
"  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
"  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
"  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
•^  have  commanded  you:  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
"  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. '^(y«)  We  are  both 
agreed  that  these  passages  exclude  from  baptism, 
those  adults  who  are  destitute  of  knowledge,  because 
they   must  first  be   taught of  faith,   because  they 

(/)  Closeof  his  Apology.  (m)  See  his  Apology,  pp,  145.149. 

(w)  Mark  xvi.  16.     Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

E  .-, 


*  (     34     ) 

are  required  to   believe and  of  obedience,  because 

they  are  required  to  observe  all  things.  We  are  both 
agreed  on  another  point  also,  which  is  as  plainly  taught 
by  these  texts  as  the  one  just  now  stated.  That  is,  that 
those  intelligent  adults  who  are  destitute  of  knowledge, 
faith  and  obedience,  are  deprived  of  Christ's  gracious 
presence,  by  his  Spirit,  unto  the  end  of  the  ivorld,  and 
of  his  salvation  in  eternity.  We  agree,  in  a  third  posi- 
tion, that  the  privilege  of  baptism,  the  enjoyment  of 
Christ's  Spirit,  and  eternal  salvation  are  here  secured 
to  believing  adults.  There  is  a  fourth  point  in  which 
we  can  possibly  meet.  The  Apostle  Peter  shews  that 
the  promise  of  the  Spirit  of  sanctification  and  salvation 
is  to  believers  and  their  children ;  "  The  promise  is 
unto  you  and  to  your  children."  The  fifth  point  is 
the  one  on  which  we  differ.  Do  these  passages  ex- 
clude infants  from  baptism  ?  They  affirm ;  we  deny. 
They  say  that  Christ^s  command  to  teaeh  and  baptize 
all  nations,  excludes  infants  as  incapable  of  instruction : 
then  are  they  not  excluded  from  his  promise,  "  lo  !  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world?"  They 
say  that  our  Saviour's  declaration,  "  he  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  excludes  infants  as 
incapable  of  faith:  but  the  next  clause  says,  "he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  If,  then  the  former 
clause  deprives  them  of  baptism,  because  incapable  of 
faith,  this  latter  one  excludes  from  salvation  all  infants 
who  cannot  believe.  Mr.  Robinson's  "  good  Baptist," 
Michael  Servetus,  of  the  sixteenth  century,  saw  the 
necessity  of  this  conclusion,  and  admitted  its  correctness. 
He  rejected  infants  from  baptism   and  from    salvation 


(     35     ) 

together,  because  they  could  not  believe ;  and  supported 
his  doctrine  by  that  text  which  says,  "  He  that  believeth 
not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth 
on  h\m,^\o)  This  mode  of  interpretation,  if  consistently 
maintained,  would  exclude  infants  from  daily  bread, 
as  well  as  from  baptismal  water  Paul  says,  "  This  we 
commanded  you,  that  if  any  would  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat.''(/j)  Our  Opponents  should  say,  infants 
cannot  work^  therefore  infants  should  not  eat.  Why 
do  they  not  reason  and  act  thus?  Because  they  know 
that  this  command  related  to  adults  who  ought  to  work, 
and  will  not ;  and  not  to  infants  who  cannot  work.  Just 
so  Pedobaptists  interpret  the  above  texts  concerning 
baptism.  They  are  intended  to  exclude  adults  who 
ought  to  believe,  but  will  not :  and  not  infants  which 
are  neither  believers  nor  unbelievers.  And  to  reason 
otherwise,  is  as  absurd  as  to  say  that  the  sheep  on  the 
right  hand  of  Christ,  at  the  day  of  judgment,  are  in- 
tended to  exclude  not  only  the  goats,  but  the  lambs  also. 
Such  sentiments  as  the  above  texts  contain,  are 
found  in  Pedobaptist  writers,  and  Pedobaptist  creeds, 
in  every  age  and  country :  and,  what  is  remarkable, 
Baptist  writers  quote  them,  as  they  do  the  scriptures, 
in  opposition  to  that  system  which  their  authors  main- 
tain. They  cannot  help  confessing  that  after  Cyprian's 
day,  Pedobaptism  prevailed  in  the  church;  and  yet 
when  Cyprian  and  other  Fathers  talk  of  the  necessity  of 
believing  and  repenting  before  baptism,  they  quote  these 
expressions  against  infant  baptism,  although  they  know 

(o^  Calvin's  Institutes.  Book  4.  ch.  xvi.  sect.  31, 
Xfi)  2  Thess.  iii.  10.  in  Calv,  Inst.  B.  4.  ch.  xvi.  s.  29, 


(     36     ) 

that  their  authors  were  Pedobaptists,  and  never  meant 
them  to  apply  to  infants.  Speaking  of  baptism,  Cy- 
prian declares  that  all  "  will  perish,"  "  unless  they  do 
"  come  with  repentance  to  that  only  salutary  sacrament 
"  of  the  church.'^  On  the  same  subject  Gregory  Nyssen 
says,  '^  Prayer  to  God,  and  the  imploring  of  the  heavenly 
"  grace,  and  the  water,  and  faith,  are  the  things  that 
"  make  up  the  sacrament  of  regeneration."  To  the 
same  amount,  Cyril,  Chrysostom,  and  Augustine. 
Basil  says,  ''  One  must  believe  first,  and  then  be 
^^  sealed  with  baptism."  ^Jerom  says  of  the  Apostles, 
'  that  they  first  taught  the  nations,  and  then  baptized 
*  them ;  ^^  for  it  cannot  be  that  the  body  do  receive 
^^  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  unless  the  soul  have  before 
'^  received  the  true  faith."  \q)  If  the  scriptures  forbid 
infant  baptism,  so  do  these  Fathers:  but  both  sides 
know  that  these  Fathers  held  infant  baptism  and  requir- 
ed faith  as  a  qualification  in  adults  only ;  and  so  we  be- 
lieve the  scriptures  do. 

But  the  inconsistency  of  our  Opponents  does  not  stop 
with  the  scriptures  and  the  Fathers.  They  have  claim- 
ed the  Pedobaptist  Reformers  and  reformed  churches 
and  their  successors  to  the  present  day.  They  even 
quote  against  Infant  baptism,  the  standards  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist churches  with  which  we  are  conversant  and 
connected  ;  and  most  certainly,  they  are  as  much  against 
it  as  the  scriptures  are.  Both  alike  require  faith  in 
the  subject.  The  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  England 
says,  "  There  is  required  of  persons  to  be  baptized,  faith 

(7)  Wall's  Defence,  pp,  346.  U7. 


I 


(     37     ) 

"  and  repentance."  Our  Catechism  says  that  in  a  sacra- 
ment, ^^  Christ  and  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant 
"  are  represented,  sealed  and  applied  to  believers." 
The  same  work  says  that  their  efficacy  depends  upon 
"  the  blessing  of  Christ,  and  the  working  of  his  Spirit 
"  in  them  that  by  faith  receive  them."(r)  In  the  close 
of  my  Opponent's  book  against  Mr.  Walker,  these 
and  similar  passages  of  our  Creed  are  explained  just 
as  the  scriptures  are,  in  opposition  to  infant  baptism. 
On  the  first  of  them  the  writer  says,  "  Mark,  only  to 
^^  believers.  Are  infants  capable  of  believing?"  On 
the  second  passage  he  says,  ''  Here  mark  again, 
^'  the  blessing  of  Christ  and  the  working  of  his  Spirit 
"  is  wholly  restricted  to  them  that  by  faith  receive 
"  them.  Is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  infants  can  so 
''  receive?  Then  surely  it  would  be  wrong  not  to  admit 
''  them  also  to  the  Lord's  table.  But  the  thing  being 
"  insupposable,  they  are  therefore  equally  debarred 
"  from  both."  On  the  whole,  he  observes,  "  Are  not 
'^  all  the  blessings  and  benefits  specified  in  them  exclu- 
"  sively  confined  to  believers?  Obviously  so,  as  the  words 
''  unequivocally  declare,  in  express  concurrence  with 
''  the  scriptures  cited  for  proof,  at  the  bottom  of  the 
''  page,  under  the  respective  answers.  According  to 
''  the  manifest  scope  and  tenor  of  all  those  documents 
"  taken  together,  what  comes  of  infant-sprinkling?  It 
"  stands  excluded  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  No  room 
''  is  left  for  it,  if  the  forecited  documents  contain  words 
"of  truth."  (5) 

(r)  Larger  Cat.  Questions,  92.  91.        (*)  2nd  Edition,  p.  290,  291. 


(     38     ) 

Thus  does  this  writer  profess  to  prove  that,  by  our 
Catechism,  infants  are  ^^  equally  debarred  from'^  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper;  and  that  from  our  own  creed, 
Pedobaptism  "  stands  excluded  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses." It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  he  says  this  of  the 
scriptures.  But  on  this  subject  I  can  tell  him  what  proba- 
bly never  before  entered  his  mind.  It  is  this;  that,  accord- 
ing to  his  rules  of  interpretation,  it  can  be  shewn  that 
our  Catechism,  as  well  as  the  scriptures,  exclude  in- 
fants from  salvation  as  well  as  from  baptism,  by  requir- 
ing faith  for  the  one  as  well  as  the  other.  It  speaks 
as  follows;  viz.  "To  escape  the  wrath  and  curse  of 
"  God  due  to  us  for  sin,  God  requireth  of  us  faith  in 
"  Jesus  Christ,  repentance  unto  life,  with  the  diligent 
"  use  of  all  the  outward  means  whereby  Christ  commu- 
'^  nicateth  to  us  the  benefits  of  redemption. ''(0  On  this 
article  my  Opponent  might  speak  as  follows;  Mark! ! ! 
Only  to  believers,  to  penitents,  to  diligent  seekers. 
Can  children  believe?  can  children  repent?  can  children 
diligently  use  the  means  of  grace?  Is  not  salvation  here 
"  exclusively  confined  to  believers?  Obviously  so,  as  the 
"  words  unequivocally  declare,  in  express  concurrence 
"  with  the  scriptures  cited  for  proof,  at  the  bottom  of 
"'  the  page.''  "  According  to  the  manifest  scope  and 
"  tenor''  of  the  article,  "what  comes  of  infant"  salva- 
tion? "  It  stands  excluded  to  all  intents  and  purposes.^' 
To  all  such  reasoning,  whether  on  the  scriptures  or 
the   catechism,  whether  on   infant  salvation  or  infant 

.  (/)  Shorter  Cat.  Quest.  85.  See  Larger  Cat.  Qu.  153. 


(     39     ) 

baptism,  I  can  make  no  better  answer  than  Goldsmith  has 
furnished  me  with :  and  that  is,  Fudge. 

But  the  work  from  which  I  have  quoted,  professes 
to  admit  that  our  standards  advocate  Pedobaptism,  and 
therefore  accuses  them  of  the  inconsistency  of  approv- 
ing it  in  one  place^  and  condemning  it  in  another.  The 
same,  however,  might  as  correctly  be  said  of  their 
declarations  on  infant  salvation.  According  to  Baptist 
rules  of  interpretation  the  above  passage  excludes 
them  all  from  heaven,  for  the  want  of  faith :  but  another 
passage  says,  "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  re- 
"  generated  and  saved  by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit,  who 
"  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.^'(t/) 
They  must  believe  these  to  be  contradictions.  Be- 
fore our  ecclesiastical  constitution  is  condemned  for  in- 
consistency among  the  many  alledged  faults  of  that  trans- 
cendant  production,  let  us  try  it  by  such  sober  rules  as 
practical  wisdom  has  established  for  the  interpretation 
of  our  civil  laws.  Blackstone  says^  "  One  part  of  a 
"  statute  must  be  so  construed  by  another,  that  the 
''  whole  may,  (if  possible)  stand:  ut  res  magis  valeat, 
^'  quam  pertat,^^  According  to  this  rule  we  can  admit 
that  the  church  is  sincere  in  professing  to  believe  that 
elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,  are  saved  without  faith; 
and,  in  perfect  consistency  with  this,  they  believe  that 
faith,  repentance,  and  the  diligent  use  of  the  means  of 
grace,  are  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  adults.  In  this 
way  we  reconcile  the  declarations  of  our  Saviour  and 
one    of    his    Apostles.     Peter    says,    concerning    the 

(m)  -Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  x,  sect.  3. 


(     40     ) 

promise  of  salvation  by  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christy 
"  The  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children.''  Doubt- 
less many  of  these  children  who  died  in  infancy,  were 
saved  without  faith.  Yet  our  Savour  says,  ''  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  This,  then,  must  be 
understood  of  adults :  ut  res  magis  valeat  quam  pereat. 
So  when  our  church  or  other  churches,  or  when  Chris- 
tian Fathers  and  Reformers,  and  ministers  approve  of 
baptizing  infants  without  faith,  they  are  sincere :  and 
they  are  no  less  so,  when  they  affirm  that  faith  is  neces- 
sary to  baptism ;  because  they  mean  this  of  adults ;  so 
that  it  is  quite  possible  ''  that  the  whole  may  stand," 
Thus  we  explain  the  scriptures.  When  they  speak  of 
the  ecclesiastical  or  ceremonial  holiness  of  children, 
and  of  circumcising  and  baptizing  whole  households 
on  the  faith  of  the  parent,  when  the  infants  cannot  be- 
lieve, we  receive  it  as  true :  and  it  is  no  less  true  that 
they  often  require  personal  piety  as  a  qualification  for 
baptism;  because  they  often  speak  of  adult  subjects. 
This  interpretation  is  of  such  a  character,  that  the 
whole  may  stand  without  contradiction ;  that  the  thing 
may  have  some  meaning^  rather  than  perish,  by  in- 
consistency. 

But  my  Opponent  may  tell  me,  ^this  is  the  point 
'  to  be  tried.  Prove  that  the  scriptures  do  consider 
'  infants  as  suitable  subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  and 
'  we  can  easily  prove  that  adults j  are  proper  subjects; 
'  and  we  may  possibly  adn>it  that  the  two  may  go  to- 
'  gether  without  inconsistency.'  To  prove  thai  the 
scriptures  do  admit  infants  to  this  ordinance,  is  the  very 
thing  which  I  hope  soon  to  do :  but  before  coming  to  this 


I 


(     41     ) 

point,  it  is  necessary  to  declare  what  is  meant  by  the 
scriptures^  and  what  weight  is  to  be  given  to  them  in 
this  controversy.  With  the  Westminster  Assembly,  I 
can  truly  say  that  "  Under  the  name  of  holy  scripture, 
"  or  the  word  of  God  written,  are  now  contained  all 
"  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,'^  ''  all 
''  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the 
^'  rule  of  feith  and  \\^t,'^\v)  With  them,  I  can  conscien- 
tiously quote  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to 
prove  that  ^'  the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing 
^'  parents  are  to  be  baptized.^'  Yet  would  you  believe 
that  these  very  words,  for  the  proof  of  which  they  have 
referred  to  Genesis  and  Galatians,  are  in  that  same 
Chapter  on  Baptism,  which  my  Opponent  quotes  as 
denying  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  in  this 
controversy ;  merely  because  it  is  there  stated  that 
^'  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  or- 
dained by  Jesus  Christ/'^?/;)  This  my  Opponent  takes 
as  his  text,  and  professes  to  build  upon  it  as  follows,  viz: 
'^1.  We  shall  go  to  the  New  Testament,  and  not  to 
*^  the  Old,  to  ascertain  the  nature,  design,  and  subject 
'^  of  this  ordinance.  2.  We  shall  appeal  to  the  words  of 
^'  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  institution  of  baptism,  as  our  text 
"  says,  it  is  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ ;  we  shall  have 
^'  nothing  to  do  with  Moses  in  this  matter,  however 
^^  useful  he  may  be  in  others.  No  doubt  our  Opponent 
^'  will  feel  his  creed  honored,  and  will  acquiesce  in 
^'  our  method  as  correct."  **  In  establishing  the  first 
^'  point,  that  a  believer  is  the  only  subject  of  baptism;, 

iy)  Chap.  i.  sect.  2,  (w)  Ch,  xxviii.  sect.  1.  4. 

F 


(     42     ) 

'^  I  will,  according  to  my  text,  appeal  exclusively  to 
^^  the  New  Testament;  and  reason  itself  will  justify 
"  me  in  this  particular ;  for  who  would  go  to  the  Old 
'^  Testament  to  find  an  ordinance  which  is  not  in  it, 
'^  and  which  belongs  exclusively  to  the  JVew?^\x), 

Whether  this  ordinance  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
New  Testament,  is  a  point  which  we  are  about  to  try. 
We  are  about  to  see  whether  the  words  immediately 
preceding  those  which  my  Opponent  has  quoted  are 
not  also  true.  They  are  as  follows,  viz.  "The  sacraments 
''  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  regard  of  the  spiritual  things 
"  thereby  signified  and  exhibited,  were,  for  substance  the 
''  same  with  those  of  the  New.'^  I  agree  with  the  authors 
of  my  Opponents  text,  that  this  initiatory  rite,  is,  in  its 
present  form,  an  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament ;  but 
I  agree  with  them  in  believing  moreover,  that  in  its 
substance,  it  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament:  and  be- 
cause it  is  there  undeniably  administered  to  infants, 
therefore  the  opposers  of  infant  baptism  are  too  apt  to 
reject  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament.  Consider 
well  the  following  words  of  my  Opponent,  in  the  pros- 
pectus of  one  of  his  publications.  "  Tlie  Editor  acknow- 
"  ledging  no  standard  of  religious  faith  or  works,  other 
"  than  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  the  latter  as 
"  the  only  standard  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  will, 
"  intentionally  at  least,  oppose  nothing  which  it  contains, 
"  and  recommend  nothing  which  it  does  not  enjoin. ^^ 
As  it  is  the  new  Testament  only,  which  he  will  not 
intentionally  oppose,  we  are  left  to  infer  that  he  will 

(x)See  CampbcirsSpunous  Deb  rite,  pp.  57,58. 


(     43     )      .  -         ** 

intentionally  oppose  the  Old  Testament,  as  he  most 
assuredly  does.  But  this  he  thinks  justifiable,  since 
it  is  not  the  standard,  in  whole  nor  in  part,  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  but  of  some  other  religion  ;  what  this  other 
religion  is,  he  may  yet  tell  us. 

In  rejecting  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  my 
Opponent  only  follows  ,his  instructor,  the  celebrated 
disciple  of  Dr.  Priestley.  Robinson  quotes  with  appro- 
bation, the  error  of  the  Massalians,  who  ''  thought  the 
Old  Testament  a  true  history,  but  not  a  rule  of  Christian 
action."  The  same  thing  he  observes  concerning  the 
Manicheans ;  and  then  asks,  ^^  Who  doth  not  see  the 
justness  of  this  sentiment?''  He  then  observes  that  '^  the 
Fathers,  particularly  the  Africans  derived  all  the  errors 
that  founded  and  supported  their  hierarchy  [that  is,  they 
derived  Pedobaptism]  from  the  Old  Testament."  These 
observations  belong  to  nine  quarto  pages,  which  the 
American  Editor  has  left  out  in  one  place;  because, 
in  them,  Robinson  comes  out  as  the  advocate  of  Mani- 
cheism,  Socinianism,  and  every  filthy  thing  which  he  can 
lay  his  hands  on.(?/)  If  he  be  really  sincere,  in  saying  that 
the  African  Fathers  derived  all  their  errors,  as  he  calls 
them,  from  the  Old  Testament,  then  he  must  consider 
the  Old  Testament  the  worst  book  that  was  ever  written, 
not  even  the  Westminster  Confession  excepted :  for  he 
evidently  considers  the  African  Fathers  the  worst  men, 
and  their  system  the  worst  religion,  that  can  be  found 
on  earth,  or  (I  might  say)  in  hell ;  but  this  great  Baptist 
champion  did  not  believe  that  there  was  a  hell. 

(y)  I.ondon  Edition,  j)p  204 — 213. 


(     44     ) 

After  rejecting  one  half  of  God's  word,  Robinson  and 
his  Socinians  came  very  naturally  to  despise  th:  other 
half,  and  to  throw  contempt  upon  the  external  means 
of  grace  in  general.  Pious  Baptists  of  the  present  day 
are  not,  perhaps,  aware  that  this  has  been  very  much 
the  character  of  their  sect  from  the  beginning.  This 
arose  in  some  measure,  from  their  opposition  to  original 
sin,  and  having  too  good  an  opinion  of  themselves.  Stapfer 
says,  concerning  them,  '*  Because  they  who  had  attained 
"  the  highest  grade  of  perfection  and  sanctity,  no  longer 
^'  needed  the  external  means  of  grace ;  hence  they  set 
^^  no  great  value  upon  the  use  of  the  sacred  scriptures, 
^^  and  they  deny  that  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament 
"  especially  is  useful  to  men  of  their  society,  either 
"  that  the  doctrine  of  truth  may  be  known,  or  the  study 
''  of  piety  promoted.''(^) 

Such  sentiments  as  these,  whether  in  Baptists  or  Pedo- 
baptists,  are  essentially  wrong.  An  inspired  Apostle 
of  the  New  Testament  says  concerning  the  scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament,  *^  All  scripture  is  given  by  in- 
''  spiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for 
"  reproof,  for  correction,  and  instruction  in  righteous- 
"  ness.'Ya)  If  vve  were  discussing  the  question  of  in- 
fidelity instead  of  Phristian  baptism,  I  would,  of  course, 
endeavour  to  prove  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. At  present  we  shall  have  to  take  this  for  grant- 
ed. Whatever  can  be  proved  from  the  inspired  vol- 
ume, I  shall  consider  as  well  proved ;  and  none  but  an 
infidel  will  say  otherwise.     Indeed  the  latitude  which 

(z)  Institutions  of  Polemic  Theology,  ch.  xvjii.  sect.  10. 
(c)  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 


I 


(     45      ) 

I  take  is  embraced  in  that  very  rule  which  my  Opponent 
has  quoted  with  so  much  applause,  concerning  the  in- 
terpretation of  one  part  of  scripture  by  another.  It 
is  also  contemplated  in  another  passage  quoted  from  the 
same  excellent  work,  which  declares  the  scriptures,  in 
regard  to  all  essentials,  sufficiently  plain  even  to  the  un- 
learned, ^^in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary  means.''(6)  It 
is  to  the  unlearned,  chiefly,  that  the  argument  of  an 
unlearned  man  is  now  addressed.  To  their  satisfaction 
I  hope  to  shew,  that  the  scriptures  consider  infants  as 
suitable,  though  not  exclusive  subjects  of  Christian  bap- 
tism. This  proposition  is  based  upon  divine  command 
and  Apostolical  practice. 

ARGUMENT  I. 

DIVINE  COMMAND. 

On  the  authority  of  God,  in  relation  to  baptism.  Booth 
quotes  a  very  precious  sentiment  of  the  great  Cartwright, 
the  Father  of  the  Puritans.  "  As  the  salvation  of  men 
"  ought  to  be  dear  unto  us ;  so  the  glory  of  God,  which 
^^  consisteth  in  that  his  orders  be  kept,  ought  to  be  much 
''  more  dear.''  A  holy  zeal  for  observing  and  enforcing 
all  God's  commandments,  out  of  regard  to  their  Author, 
is  a  lovely  Christian  grace:  but  as  my  Opponent  has 
just  now  observed  that  ^'all  things  in  scripture  are  not 
alike  plain  in  themselves,  nor  alike  clear  unto  all,"(c) 
our  zeal  must  be  accompanied  with  knowledge,  or  it 

{b)  See  our  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  i.  sect.  7.  9.  quoted  in  the  Spuri- 
ous Report,  pp.  56.  57. 
(c)  Spurious  Report,  p.  56, 


(     46     ) 

will  degenerate  into  bigotry,  or  be  converted  into  rebel- 
lion. My  Opponent  seems  to  think  that  nothing  but 
what  he  calls  an  express  command  can  authorize  the  bap- 
tism of  infants;  as  if  God  had  no  right  to  claim  obedi- 
ence to  any  law  which  was  not  framed  according  to  my 
Opponent's  directions.  Even  if  the  scriptures  were  to 
use  the  very  words,  baptize  infants,  or  baptize  children, 
it  would  not  answer  the  purpose;  because,  according 
to  the  criticisms  with  which  his  Master,  Robinson,  has 
furnished  him,  infants  and  children,  and  all  such  words, 
signify  men  and  not  babes.  As  such  an  express  com- 
mand would  be  unavailing,  we  do  not  think  it  disparag- 
ing to  the  solid  evidence  which  the  scriptures  contain, 
to  say,  that  this  evidence  does  not  satisfy  his  demands.  In 
my  opinion,  that  person  shews  a  divine  command  for 
our  system,  who  proves  that  God  once  gave  to  the 
church  a  command,  yet  unrepealed,  to  administer  to 
infants  that  initiatory  seal  of  which  baptism  is  the  New 

Testament  form  ; who  proves  that  this  is  included 

in  the  command  to  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  ; 

and  in  the  declaration  that  children  are  holy ; 

and  should   be  suffered  to  come  to  Christ  the 

Head  of  the  Church,  because  they  are  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  which  is  the  church.  He  who  shall  prove 
these,  shews  a  divine  command,  although  it  is  not  what 
my  Opponent  calls  an  express  command. 

Neither  is  this  necessary. in  matters  of  doctrine  or 
practice,  government  or  worship.  It  is  well  known 
that  Socinians  deny  that  there  is  an  express  revelation 
of  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  in  Tin  ty,  because  these 
words  are  not  in  the  bible  in  this  connexion :  yet  if  it 


I 


(     47     ) 

can  be  proved  from  the  bible  that  the  Father  is  God, 
and  the  Son  is  God,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God, 
and  that  these  are  not  three  Gods  but  one  God,  the  doc- 
trine is  more  firmly  established  than  it  would  be  by  the 
express  words.  Trinity  in  Unity.  They  also  deny 
the  vicarious  satisfaction  of  Christ  for  the  same  reason : 
yet  if  it  can  be  shewn  that  he  was  cut  off  for  sins  not  his 
own,  and  this  to  magnify  God's  law  and  make  it  honora- 
ble, the  doctrine  is  as  fully  proved  as  if  the  atonement 
had  been  expressly  defined  by  the  words  vicarious  satis- 
faction. There  is  not  in  the  scriptures,  an  express  pro- 
hibition of  duelling  nor  of  lotteries,  nor  of  gaming  of 
any  sort;  nor  is  there  an  express  license  for  eating 
swine's  flesh ;  neither  is  there  any  need  of  such  express 
statutes,  for  the  scriptures  are  plain  enough  without  them. 
Where  do  the  Baptists  get  an  express  command  for  their 
independent  form  of  Church  government  ?  When  they 
will  shew  us  a  text  saying,  Ye  shall  be  Independents, 
and  not  Presbyterians,  then  1  will  shew  one  which  says 
expressly.  Ye  shall  be  Pedobaptists,  and  not  Anabap- 
tists. Where  do  pious  Baptists  find  an  express  com- 
mand for  the  observance  of  family  prayer  and  the  Chris- 
tian sabbath,  which  they  love,  and  my  Opponent  des- 
pises? They  would  as  soon  look  for  an  express  com- 
mand for  drawing  their  breath:  and  rather  than  relin- 
quish their  domestic  and  sabbatical  privileges,  they 
would,  like  Daniel,  give  up  their  breath. 

On  this  subject  my  Opponent  was  completely  posed 
by  Mr.  Walker,  his  former  Antagonist.  My  Opponent 
asked  him,  *^  Was  there  ever  a  positive  ordinance  or 
"  institution  founded  solely  upon  inference  or  reason?'' 


(     48     ) 

In  reply,  Mr  Walker,  on  his  part  asked,  ^^Have  we  a 
''  positive  command  for  all  the  acknowledged  institutions 
^'  of  the  church?*'  This  was  a  true  Socratic  refutation. 
It  was  so  puzzling  to  my  Opponent,  that  he  chose  not  to 
record  it  in  his  report  of  the  Debate  ;  but,  in  its  place, 
he  recorded  (according  to  a  custom  of  his  another  ques- 
tion which  he  manufactured  for  Mr.  Walker,  and 
which  he  thought  he  could  more  easily  answer.  The 
question  which  he  made,  is  this;  "  I  ask  him  for  a  posi- 
*^  tive  command  for  the  institution  of  a  church. ''  One 
would  suppose  that,  as  he  had  the  forming  of  the  question 
and  the  answer  too,  he  would  make  the  latter  come  up, 
at  least,  to  the  level  of  his  own  demands.  But  this  he 
was  very  far  from  doing.  You  know  that  he  will  not 
allow  any  passage  of  scripture  to  be  a  divine  command 
for  infant  baptism  unless  it  has  the  word  infant  in  it.  It 
is  also  a  sine  qua  non  with  him  that  it  should  have  the 
word  baptism  in  it.  When  Mr.  Walker  quoted  authori- 
ties which  were  destitute  of  these  words,  my  Antago- 
nist indignantly  answered  as  follows,  viz.  "  Is  it  possi- 
^'  ble  that  my  Opponent  has  no  better  support  for  his 
''  system  ?  Is  he  obliged  to  prove  a  New  Testament 
''  positive  institution  from  the  17th  Chapter  of  Genesis? 
''  from  portions  of  scripture  in  which  baptism  is  never 
^'  mentioned?  In  all  the  scriptures  he  has  yet  adduced, 
"  baptism  is  not  so  much  as  once  mentioned. '\(// 

Now  let  us  see  whether  he  has  come  up  to  his  own 
demands  in  answering  his  own  question,  which  he  intend- 
ed to  make  very  easy.     If  a  divine  command  for  the 

{d)  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.'W'alk.er,  p.  23. 


II 


(    49     ) 

baptism  of  infants  require  the  express  mention  of  bap- 
tism and  infants^  then  an  express  command  for  the  in- 
stitution of  a  church  must  at  least  mention  the  words  in- 
stitution  and  church.  He  sets  about  his  answer  with 
the  bravery  of  Napoleon,  when  entering  Moscow.  He 
refers  us  to  the  passage  where  our  Saviour  commands 
his  disciples  to  teach  or  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,  and  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things. (e)  This 
is,  like  Mr.  Walker's  authority  for  infant  baptism,  very 
good  proof,  but,  like  that,  it  is  utterly  destitute  of  those 
words  which  his  Opponent  considered  necessary  to  con- 
stitute it  an  express  command.  Mr.  Walker  might, 
therefore,  have  answered,  "  Is  it  possible  that  my  Op- 
^'  ponent  has  no  better  support  for  his  system  ?  Is  he 
^'  obliged  to  prove  the  institution  of  a  church  from  the 
^'  28th  chapter  of  Matthew  ?  from  portions  of  scripture 
^'  in  which  neither  institution  nor  church  is  ever  men- 
<'  tioned  ?'' 

But  he  quotes  another  passage  which  has  the  word 
church,  though  it  does  not  speak  of  its  original  institu- 
tion, nor  propound  a  command,  but  states  a  historical 
fact,  that  "  The  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such 
"  as  should  be  saved. "(/)  This  he  triumphantly  closes 
with  declaring,  "  Here  there  is  a  positive  institution  of 
^^  a  church,  with  the  authority  for  it.''  We  are  not  so 
much  disposed  to  quarrel  with  this  declaration  as  he  is 
himself.  Let  us  now  compare  his  question  with  his  an- 
swer, and  with  the  rules  which  he  has  dictated  in  rela- 
tion to  such  subjects.    His  question  requires  "  a  positive 

(e)  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  in  the  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.  W.  p.  5j. 
(/)  Acts  ii.  47.  in  the  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr,  W.  p.  51, 


(     50     ) 

^'  command  for  the  institution  of  a  church."  His  an- 
swer states  a  historical  fact,  in  which  members  were 
added  to  a  church,  without  any  express  mention  either 
of  its  charter  or  of  its  original  institution.  It  seems  pe- 
culiarly inconsistent  for  him  to  call  this  historical  fact, 
(without  a  precept,)  "  a  positive  institution  of  a  church,'' 
in  the  close  of  a  paragraph,  which  commences  by  defin- 
ing a  positive  institution  to  be  a  particular  precept.  His 
own  words  are  these,  viz.  "  In  positive  institutions,  all 
''  that  we  have  to  inquire  after,  is  the  meaning  of  the 
"  words  of  one  particular  precept,  which,  to  an  iota,  we 
^^  are  bound  to  perform,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
^'  commanded.''  Now,  I  would  ask,  has  Mr.  Walker's 
Opponent  ever  yet  given  us  his  "  one  particular  pre- 
cept, which,  to  an  iota,"  expressly  gives  "  a  positive 
command  for  the  institution  of  a  church,"  in  so  many 
words,  according  to  his  own  requisitions,  and  according 
to  his  own  promise  ?  If,  then,  he  has  not  answered  his 
own  question,  which  he  intended  to  make  as  easy  as  pos- 
sible, it  is  no  wonder  that  he  has  never  answered  Mr. 
Walker's  question,  "  Have  we  a  positive  command  for 
all  the  acknowledged  institutions  of  the  church  ?" 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  question  of  Mr. 
Walker's  was  connected  with  one  or  two  of  his  Oppo- 
nent's, which  asked,  "  Was  there  ever  a  positive  ordi- 
''  nance  or  institution  founded  solely  upon  inference  or 
''  reason  ?  Or  can  there  be  a  positive  institution,  with- 
"  out  a  positive  precept  or  precedent  authorizing  it."(^) 
These  questions  are  framed  with  an  unfairness,  which 

{g)  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.  W.  p.  68, 


(     51     ) 

says  little  in  favour  of  their  author's  candour  or  of  his 
cause.  Have  we  ever  professed  that  infant-baptism  was 
"  founded  solely  upon  inference  or  reason  ?''  Have  we 
not  always  appealed  to  positive  precepts  and  precedents 
of  revelation  for  our  authority  ?  Neither  do  I  see  the 
danger  of  admitting,  in  the  established  meaning  of  the 
words,  his  favourite  principle  that  '^a  limited  commis- 
3ion  implies  a  prohibition  of  such  things  as  are  not  con- 
tained in  it/'(A)  We  say  that  infant- baptism  is  contain- 
ed in  the  commission,  and  therefore  not  prohibited  by  it: 
and  we  prove  this  in  the  same  reasonable  and  scriptural 
way  in  which  our  Opponents  prove  the  duty  of  female- 
communion.  They  do  not  find  a  passage  of  scripture 
which  says  expressly,  ^'  Females  must  commune  ;"  yet 
they  find  evidence  that  Christ's  believing  disciples 
should  commune  ;  they  therefore  admit  to  that  privilege 
«uch  females  as  answer  that  description.  This  is  a  legi- 
timate inference  from  authority  which  contains  no  ex- 
press mention  of  females.  Suppose  a  person  inquiring 
whether  the  scriptures  forbid  him  to  demand  from  his 
brother  a  hundred  per  centum,  per  annum,  interest  on 
lent  money.  He  is  referred  to  Nehemiah  v.  11,  which 
forbids  him  to  receive  the  centesima,  which  is  one  per 
cent,  a  month,  or  twelve  per  cent,  a  year.  This  does 
not  expressly  mention  the  ratio  in  question :  yet  it  as 
really  forbids  that  exorbitant  usury,  as  it  could  do  by 
mentioning  the  identical  words.  This  is  according  to 
my  Opponent's  declaration,  "  that  a  man  is  not  to  reason 
•^  whether  he  is  to  be  just  or  honest ;  but  he  may  reason 

(A)  Spurious  Debate  with  Walker,  p.  209.  with  M-Calla,  p.  114. 


*  (     52     ) 

^^  to  know  in  what  justice  and  honesty  consist."(0  Thus 
he  does  not  consider  himself  at  liberty  to  reason  whether 
believing  disciples  should  commune  or  not,  for  this  is 
settled  by  revelation ;  but  he  may  reason  to  know  in 
what  faith  and  discipleship  consist.  This  course  my 
Opponent  pursues,  but  he  knows  the  consequences  of 
it,  as  is  evident  from  the  declamatory  vituperation  with 
which  his  argument  is  bloated.  In  his  spurious  debate 
with  Mr.  Walker, (y)  he  uses  the  following  words,  viz. 
^^  As  to  his  second  query  concerning  female  communion, 
^'  I  have  to  observe  that  although  sundry  Pedobaptists 
''  have  made  a  salvo  to  soothe  their  minds,  of  this  appa- 
^^  rent  difficulty,  it  is  a  poor  and  a  pitiful  come  off;  it  is 
^'  the  most  puerile  and  childish  retort  that  I  ever  heard 
^'  used  by  adults  that  had  any  knowledge  of  words  and 
^'  things.  Was  the  Lord's  supper  instituted  to  men  or 
^'  women  as  such  ?  Was  it  not  appointed  to  the  disci- 
''  pies  of  Christ  ?  '  He  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  saying, 
'^  partake  ye  all  of  it.'  Here  then  is  an  express  war- 
^^  rant  for  all  disciples  to  participate  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
^•'  per.  Now  it  puts  Mr.  Walker,  and  all  Pedobaptists 
^^  that  humble  themselves  to  such  means  to  support  their 
^^  cause,  to  prove  or  to  show,  that  a  woman  is  not  a  dis- 
^^  ciple  of  Christ,  But  should  they  attempt  this,  I  have 
'^  express  authority  to  shew  that  they  oppose  the  oracles 
'^  of  heaven,  for  a  woman  is  expressly  called  a  disciple, 
^^  Acts  ix.  36.  ^  For  there  was  a  certain  disciple  there 
^^  named  Tabitha  ;'  so  that  these  obstacles  thrown  in  my 
^^  way,  are  but  means  to  afford  a  clearer  and  fuller  illus 

(i)  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  p.  50.  U)  P*  ^' 


(     53     ) 

*^  tration  and  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  my  reasoning 
''  on  positive  institutions/' 

"  My  reasoiiing  on  positive  institutions^^  !  !  !  So  it 
seems  that  Pedobaptists  are  not  the  only  ones  who  reason 
on  positive  institutions.  You  have  just  now  heard  a 
specimen  of  my  Opponent's  reasoning  on  these  subjects. 
It  would  be  well  if  all  his  reasonings  were  as  correct  as 
that  which  supports  female  communion,  for  which  he  is 
not  able  to  find  what  he  calls  an  express  command.  His 
pretending  that  Mr.  Walker  is  opposed  to  this  argument 
is  pretence  only.  He  knows  that  we  admit  his  inference 
as  legitimate  ;  but  he  knows  also,  that  the  same  argu- 
ment about  discipleship  will  establish  infant- baptism.  In 
our  Saviour's  commission,  "  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,"  critics  generally  interpret  the  word  rendered 
teach,  as  meaning  disciple,  or  make  disciples  of.  My 
Opponent  says,  "  This  is  unquestionably  the  proper  ren- 
dering of  the  term. "(A)  Pedobaptists  have  often  proved, 
and,  in  due  time,  I  hope  to  prove,  in  this  debate,  that 
the  scriptures  recognize  the  discipleship  not  only  of 
Tabitha,  or  of  Lydia,  but  of  their  households,  and  of  the 
infants  of  all  believers.  And  here  it  will  not  do  to  ob- 
ject that  if  infants  are  disciples,  they  must  partake  of 
the  supper  also,  on  account  of  a  supposed  universality 
in  our  Saviour's  command  to  his  disciples,  "  Partake  ye 
all  of  it."  So  far  is  this  command  from  requiring  us 
to  admini>ter  the  supper  to  d  s  pies  of  all  ages,  that  it 
does  not  bind  us  to  administer  it  to  adult  believing 
fiisciples  universally,   since  the  discipline  of  Christ's 

(X-)  Spurious  Debate  with  me,  p«  113. 


(     54     ) 

own  appointment  sometimes  cuts  them  off  from   this 
privilege. 

But  while  my  Opponent  may  be  marshalling  objec- 
tions, I  would  remind  him  that  his  own  argument,  which 
is  admitted  to  be  good,  is  liable  to  as  serious  objections 
as  any  which  he  urges  against  ours.  When  we  give  di- 
vine authority  for  the  administration  of  the  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith  to  infant  disciples  as  well  as  adult 
believers,  he  objects  that  circumcision  never  was  the 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  in  any  case  except  that 
of  Abraham  only,  because  the  only  instance  in  which 
this  expression  is  used  is  in  connexion  with  his  name. 
If  this  mode  of  expounding  the  scriptures  be  admitted, 
how  will  my  Opponent's  argument  for  female  communion 
fare  in  the  hands  of  a  bold  objector  ?  Recollect  that  it 
rests  upon  female  discipleship,  and  female  discipleship, 
according  to  my  Opponent,  rests  upon  the  discipleship 
of  Tabitha.  The  objector,  therefore,  would  take  my 
Opponent  on  his  own  ground,  and  say^  As  circumcision 
was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  to  Abraham  only, 
and  to  no  other  male,  so  discipleship  was  attached  to 
Tabitlm  only,  and  to  no  other  female  ! ! 

Again  ;  when  we  say,  7/*  disciples  should  be  baptized, 
and  ?/the  infants  of  believers  are  disciples,  then  these 
infants  should  be  baptized,  my  logical  Opponent  laughs 
at  our  ifs,  and  would  make  you  believe  that  sound  logic 
does  not  recognize  hypothetical  syllogisms  at  all  !  Yet, 
strange  to  tell !  his  boasted  argument  for  female  com- 
munion is  virtually  a  hypothetical  syllogism.  It  is  as 
follows: 

■#■ 


(  ^5  ) 

If  disciples  should  commune ;  and 

If  females  be  disciples^  then 

Females  should  commune  :  but 

Disciples  should  commune  ;  and 

Females  are  disciples  ;  therefore 

Females  should  commune. 
Now  in  all  this,  where  is  my  Opponent's  express 
command  for  female  communion  ?  His  vapouring  argu- 
ment does  not  even  assert  it :  but  only  says  that  he  has 
^'  an  express  warrant  for  all  disciples  to  participate  of 
^'  the  Lord's  supper ;"  after  which  he  has  to  shew  that 
females  are  disciples.  So  we  have  an  express  warrant 
for  baptizing  disciples ;  and  we  prove  from  scripture 
that  believers  and  their  infants  are  subjects  of  this  disci- 
pleing  and  baptizing.  When  my  Opponent  pursues  this 
method  of  reasoning  to  establish  the  duty  and  privilege 
of  female  communion,  he  would  think  it  a  breach  of  the 
ninth  commandment,  for  any  one  to  tell  him  that  he  held 
"  a  positive  ordinance  or  institution,  founded  solely  upon 
inference  or  reason,''  ^^  without  a  positive  precept." 
His  argument  proves  that  there  is  a  divine  precept, 
though  not  what  he  calls  an  express  command.  He 
proves  that  the  duty  in  question  is  not  founded  solely 
upon  reason,  but  upon  revelation.  That  there  is  the 
same  authority  for  infant-baptism,  racist  be  fairly  con- 
cluded from  the  establishment  of  the  following  propo- 
sitions. 

1 .  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a 
visible  church  of  God. 

2.  The  Christian  Church  is  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic 
Church  :  or,  in  other  words,  the  Jewish  Society  before 


(     56     ) 

Christy  and  the  Christian  Society  after  Christ,  are  one 
and  the  same  Church,  in  different  dispensations. 

3.  Jewish  Circumcision  before  Christ,  and  Christian 
Baptism,  after  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  seal  in 
substance,  though  in  different  forms. 

4.  The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  was  once 
enjoined  by  divine  authority ;  that  is,  God  once  com- 
manded it. 

5.  The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  has  never 
since  been  prohibited  by  divine  authority ;  that  is,  this 
command  of  God,  originally  given  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, is  not  repealed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  rather 
confirmed. 

Therefore,  this  command  is  still  in  force.  And  as  it 
is  a  command  to  administer  to  infants  the  initiatory  seal 
of  the  church,  which,  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
is  baptism,  there  is  now  a  divine  command  for  baptizing 
the  infants  of  believers.  Admit  the  premises,  and  the 
conchision  is  inevitable.  Whether  these  propositions 
be  loved  or  feared,  hated  or  revered,  derided  or  res- 
pected, they  necessarily  involve  the  conclusion.  Logic 
may  exhibit  its  sophistry,  rhetoric  its  rage,  satire  its 
wit,  and  vulgarity  its  scurrility,  but  if  these  premises 
be  true,  infant- baptism  is  a  duty.  My  Opponent  knows 
that  if  he  were  to  admit  the  truth  of  these  propositions, 
he  would  lose  his  cause  at  once.  He  therefore  disputes 
them  ;  and  I  therefore,  with  a  good  conscience,  and 
depending  on  divine  help,  proceed  to  prove  them. 


(     57     ) 
PROPOSITION  I. 

Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a 
visible  church  of  god. 

Many  Baptists,  such  as  Booth,  Butterworth,  and  Jud- 
son,  appear  as  if  they  could  adopt  this  proposition  just 
as  it  stands.  The  second  of  these  writers,  in  his  Con- 
cordance, gives,  as  the  fourth  meaning  of  the  word 
Churchy  "  The  people  of  the  Jews,  ivho  was  the  church 
and  people  of  God.^^  In  proof  of  this  he  refers  to  Acts 
vii.  38,  which  says,  ^^This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church 
in  the  wilderness.''  A  person  who  is  unacquainted  with 
the  ways  of  my  Opponent,  might  suppose,  from  some  of 
his  declarations,  that  he  also  believed  this  doctrine.  He 
has  even  accused  Dr.  Rallston  of  misrepresentation  for 
denying  it.  In  his  Strictures  at  the  end  of  his  spurious 
Debate  with  Mr.  Walker, (/)  he  speaks  as  follows,  viz. 
"  Mr.  R.  affirms  that  I  ''  deny  that  there  was  a  visible 
^^  church  in  the  world  until  the  day  of  Pentecost.'  He 
^'  refers  to  no  page  in  the  Debate,  nor  could  he,  for  there 
^'  is  not  such  a  declaration  in  the  w^hole  book.  Nay,  so 
*'  far  is  the  above  from  fact,  that  I  again  and  again  speak 
"  of  a  visible  church  in  the  world  from  Moses'  time  to 
''  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Page  26,  I  called  the  Jews 
^'  God's  people,  and  spoke  of  their  visible  church  state  : 
^'  so  also  in  pages  40,  41,  43,  44,  53,  98,  I  spoke  of  the 
'^  Jewish  church,  and  of  their  visible  church  state  ;  and 


(/)  p.  223. 

H! 


(     58     ) 

^^  repeatedly  contrasted  the  Jewish  Church  with  the 
"  Christian  Church — Yet  Mr   R.  affirms  that  I  denied 
''  there  was  a  visible  church  on  earth  till  the  day  of 
"  Pentecost ! !''     From  this,  one  would  suppose  that  it 
was  a  settled  opinion  with  my  Opponent  that  the  Jewish 
people  were  long  the  visible  church  of  God,  and  that  he 
was  much  in  the  habit  of  insisting  upon  this  point;  and 
that  he  had  especially  urged  this  doctrine  in  the  many 
pages  to  which  he  refers.     The  last  of  these  references 
must  be  a  mistake,  as  it  does  not  contain  a  word  upon  the 
subject.     If  the  first  of  them  prove  the  ecclesiastical 
state  of  the  Jews,  it  goes  far  to  shew  their  identity  with 
the  Christian  church.     But  this  could  not  have  been  his 
meaning,  since  it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  two  suc- 
ceding  references.     His  second  and  third  are  occupied 
about  Stephen's  "  church  in  the  wilderness,'^  which 
Butterworth,  an  eminent  Baptist  preacher,  agrees  with 
Mr.  Walker,  in  considering  "  the  people  of  the  Jews, 
who  was  the  church  and  people  of  God."     Thi«  my  Op- 
ponent disputes  in  the  places  referred  to,  by  trying  to 
prove  that  the  word  translated  church  may  mean  a  moh, 
like  that  of  Demetrius,  at  Ephesus,  instead  of  a  church 
of  God !     This  is  a  curious  way  to  prove  the  visible 
church  state  of  the  Jews.     The  only  remaining  refer- 
ence in  the  whole  list  is  of  a  piece  with  these.     Instead 
of  saying,  as  he  pretends,  that  the  Jews  were  the  visible 
church  of  God,  he  tries  to  prove  that  they  were  not  the 
Church  of  Christ,  by  an  argument  which,  if  true,  must 
go  equally  to  prove  that  they  could  not  be  the  church 
of  God,  unless  he  could  shew  that  the  latter  was  a  dif- 
ferent and  inferior  being  to  the  former.     It  is  evident 


(     59     ) 

from  his  whole  book,  that  he  is  far  from  being  friendly 
to  the  doctrine  in  question,  so  that  instead  of  Dr. 
Rallston's  misrepresenting  him,  he  has  really  misrepre- 
sented himself. 

It  is  true  that  he  has,  in  this  debate,  offered  to  concede 
the  point,  provided  that  I  will  pass  on  without  taking 
up  time  in  proving  it.  This,  however,  has  turned  out 
nothing  more  than  a  ruse  de  guerre,  to  induce  me  to 
leave  an  enemy's  garrison  in  the  rear.  For  when  he  was 
called  upon  to  fulfil  a  stipulation  which  was  of  his  own  ask- 
ing, he  refused,  and  offered  to  substitute  something  of  a 
very  different  character,  viz.  ^^That  the  Jews,  when  call- 
''  ed  out  of  Egypt,  became  a  church,    or  a  religious 

'^  assembly  in  some  sense.'^(m) "  a  church,  or  a 

^'  religious  asseinbly  in  some  sense  J^  In  what  sense, 
pray  ?  His  debate  with  Mr.  Walker  tells  us.  It  is  in 
that  sense  in  which  the  very  religious  assembly  at 
Ephesus  was  a  church ;  that  assembly  which  was  con- 
vened and  opened  with  a  Hymn  by  the  zealous  Demetrius, 
and,  after  much  noise  and  bodily  exercise,  addressed  and 
dismissed  by  his  Reverence  the  town -clerk. 

But  this  pretended  concession  denies  that  the  Jews 
were  a  church  or  a  religious  assembly  in  any  sense,  till 
called  out  of  Egypt.  In  accordance  with  this,  he  asserts 
that  ^^  they  were  never  called  a  church  until  in  the 
^^  wilderness.  This,''  says  he,  "may  be  denied,  but  there 
^^  lives  not  the  man  that  can  produce  an  instance  to  the 
"  contrary."  He  farther  assures  us,  that  "  the  occur- 
*^  rences  at  Sinai  are  ever  afterwards  referred  to  by 

(m)  Spurious  Debate  with  me  p.  S86. 


(     60     ) 

^^  Jewish  and  Christian  Prophets  as  the  commencement 
^'  of  their  ecclesiastic  existence.  The  covenant  at 
''  Sinai,  therefore,  is  the  only  national  or  ecclesiastic 
^^  covenant  from  Adam  to  the  Messiah,  recorded  in  the 
^^  Bible. ''v^z)  That  the  Sinaitic  covenant  is  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Jewish  Church,  (if  church  he  will  permit 
it  to  be  called,)  my  Opponent  endeavours  to  prove  by 
two  positions.  One  is  that  "  the  occurrences  at  Sinai 
'*  are  ever  afterwards  referred  to  by  Jewish  and  Christian 
^*  Prophets  as  the  commencement  of  their  ecclesiastic 
^'  existence."  As  this  language  plainly  intimates  that 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  full  of  evidence  to  this 
effect,  you  might  reasonably  expect  the  author  of  so  bold 
an  assertion  to  specify  a  few  instances :  but  he  has  not 
here  given  one ;  and  (to  use  his  own  language)  I  can 
safely  say,  "  there  lives  not  the  man  that  can  produce 
'^  an  instance.'^  His  other  argument  or  assertion  that 
^^  they  were  never  called  a  church  until  in  the  wilder- 
^'  ness,^'  "  at  Sinai,'^  is  as  irrelevant  as  it  is  incorrect. 
It  goes  upon  the  assumption  that  churches  are  made  by 
names  and  not  by  acts.  It  is  only  a  few  years  since  the 
name  of  Baptists  was  given  to  any  body  of  men  on  earth  ; 
for  even  the  followers  of  John  were  not  called  Baptists. 
Is  my  Opponent  willing  to  admit  that  they  are  no  older 
than  their  name?  Again  ;  ^^the  disciples  were  called 
Christians  first  in  Antioch."'  Were  there  no  Christians 
at  all,  until  this  name  was  given  to  thyn  ?  This  shews 
the  utter  irrelevani  y  of  the  argument  that  the  Jews 
^^  were  never  called  a  church  until"  the  Sinaitic  cove- 

{j})  Spurious  Debate,  p.  39P. 


(     61     ) 

nant,  even  if  this  statement  were  true,  which  it  assuredly 
is  not,  although  he  has  aiFirmed  it  so  roundly.  I  will 
not  say  that  our  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  calls 
them  a  church  before  iheir  arrival  at  Sinai ;  but  neither 
does  it  call  them  a  church  subsequent  to  that  period. 
It  is  remarkable  that  our  translators  generally  make 
congregation  in  the  Old  Testament  correspond  with 
church  in  the  New.  This  is  very  much  condemned  by 
Dr.  George  Campbell,  my  Opponent's  favourite  critic, 
who  says  that  "  they  ought  constantly  to  have  rendered 
''  the  original  expression  either  church  in  the  Old 
"  Testament  or  congregation  in  the  New.''  "  What  I 
"  blame,  therefore,"  says  he,  "  in  our  translators,  is  the 
"  want  of  uniformity."  In  the  same  connexion;|,the  Dr. 
repeatedly  declares  that  "  the  Hebrew  word  ^Hp 
[rendered  congregation  in  the  Old  Testament]  exactly 
corresponds  to  the  Greek  ixxxvi^io!^  [rendered  church 
in  the  New  Testament. ](o)  Although  Dr.  Campbell 
belonged  to  a  Pedobaptist  church,  I  adduce  his  authority 
without  fear  of  opposition,  because,  in  the  passages 
quoted,  he  is,  as  usual,  an  advocate  for  Baptist  peculiari- 
ties, in  opposition  to  the  creed  which  he  had  solemnly 
adopted.  A  work,  however,  which  my  Opponent  has 
quoted  against  us,(p)  states,  in  the  very  passages  which 
he  has  read  with  approbation,  the  same  thing  substan- 
tially which  Dr.  Campbell  has  declared,  with  this 
addition,  that  another  Hebrew  word  T)1)}  is  upon  the 
same  footing  with  lT][)y  since  both  alike  are,   in  our 


(o)  See  his  Lectures  on  Ecclesiastical  History.     Lecture  10.     Page<i 
163.  164.  Philadelphia  Edition  of  1807. 
(/i)  Dr.  Mason  on  the  Church. 


(     62    -) 

bil)le,  rendered  congregation^  and  both  alike  are  used 
to  signify  the  church. 

Now  it  is  very  easy  for  my  Opponent  to  prove  that 
they  were  called  and  considered  a  visible  church  after 
their  arrival  at  Sinai,  by  such  passages  as  Lev.  iv.  14, 
21,  where  it  is  said  that  "  br\T>T}  the  church  shall  offer 
a  young  bullock  for  the  sin,  and  bring  him  before  the 
tabernacle  of  TJ^IO  the  church^^  as  "  a  sin-offering  for 
7npn  the  churchP  It  is  certainly  the  true  church  of 
God  that  is  here  intended,  and  not  a  mob  like  that  of 
Ephesus.  But  before  this  church  had  come  to  Sinai, 
or  even  left  Egypt,  it  is  said  in  Ex.  xii.  6,  concerning 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Passover,  that  "  the  whole  illj^  /Up 
assembly  of  the  church,  or  church  of  the  congregation 
of  Israel  shall  kill  it  in  the  evening.''  Concerning  this 
also  it  may  be  said  that  the  true  church  of  God  is  here 
intended,  and  not  a  mob  like  that  at  Ephesus.  An  ex- 
amination of  Lev.  viii.  3.  xvi.  5,  with  the  context,  will 
shew  plainly  that,  after  their  arrival  at  Sinai,  the  Israelites 
were  called  mj^  the  church  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense 
of  the  word ;  for  they  are  represented  as  engaged  in 
ecclesiastical  business.  But  in  Ex.  xii.  3,  47,  the  same 
people  are  twice  called  by  the  same  name,  and  repre- 
sented as  engaged  in  the  same  business,  before  they  had 
set  out  on  their  journey  to  Mount  Sinai.  After  that 
period,  their  discipline  ordained  that  "  the  man  that  shall 
"  be  unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul 
"  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  h'H'p'n  the  church^iq)  But 
before  they  left  Egypt,  it  was  similarly  ordained  con- 

{q)  Num.  xix,  20. 


(     63     ) 

cerning  the  Passover,  that  ^^  whosoever  eateth  that 
^^  which  is  leavened,  even  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
'^  7N^ii^^  tV\V^  fif'om  the  church  of  IsraeL^^  (r) 

It  will  be  recollected  that  my  Opponent  referred  to 
an  instance  in  which  he  "  called  the  Jews  God's  people'^ 
as  a  proof  that  he  believed  in  "  their  visible  church 
state. "(5)  According  to  this,  "God's  people"  must 
mean  the  church  of  God,  What  is  here  plainly  implied 
by  my  Opponent,  is  expressly  declared  by  Dr.  George 
Campbell,  in  a  Lecture  which  is  intended  to  build  Con- 
gregationalism (the  Baptist  form  of  Government)  on  the 
ruins  of  Presbyterianism.  After  pointing  out  several 
expressions  as  "  confessedly  equivalent'^  to  each  other, 
he  adds,  "  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  phrases  Sip 
^^  dl7N  and  £D^1 7^^  Di^?  n  ^xx^rjaia  Osov  and  o  xaoj  esov 
"  the  church  of  Goc/and  the  people  of  God,^\t)  This  was 
evidently  the  understanding  of  Butte rworth,  the  Baptist 
writer,  when  he  called  the  Jews  "  the  church  and  peo- 
ple of  God."  This  is  in  conformity  with  Lev.  xvi.  33, 
which  says  ^^  He  shall  make  an  atonement  for  the  priests, 
and  for  all  the  htlpil  CDi^^  people  of  the  churchJ^ 
Moses  uses  the  word  people  alone,  in  a  sense  which  can- 
not easily  be  misunderstood.  "  Whatsoever  soul  it  be  that 
''  eateth  any  manner  of  blood,  even  that  soul  shall  be 
"  cut  off  from  his  people. ^\a)  The  word  people  here 
evidently  means  the  same  church  contemplated  in  Lev. 
xix.  20,  and  Ex.  xii.  9,  from  which  church  it  is  ordained 
that  a  soul  shall  be  cut  off  for  eating  leavened  bread,  and 


V)  E 


Exodus  xii.  19. 

•purious  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  p.  223,  quoted  above. 
JO  See  his  tenth  Lecture  on  Kcclesiastical  History,  quoted  abo\  p, 
,a)  Lev,  vii.  2f, 


{    64    ; 

for  neglecting  to  purify  himself.  And  from  premises 
which  we  have  already  shewn  are  admitted  by  Baptists 
and  Pedohaptists,  we  fairly  conclude  that  this  visible 
church  of  God  is  meant  by  the  people  from  whom  the 
uncircumcised  man-child  is  said  to  be  cut  olF  in  Gen. 
xvii.  14.  "  And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose 
^'  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall 
"  be  cut  off  from  \i\^  people;  [that  is,  from  his  church  ;] 
''  he  hath  broken  my  covenant;"  [that  is  my  ecclesiastical 
covenant,]  made  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before 
my  Opponent's  ecclesiastical  covenant,  at  Sinai. 

If  I  be  not  egregiously  mistaken,  my  Opponent's  own 
argument  operates  with  irresistible  force  against  himself. 
He  reasons  that  the  Jews  were  not  a  church  until  they 
came  to  Sinai,  because  they  were  not  called  a  church 
until  that  period.  Then  if  they  had  been  called  a  church 
before,  this  would  prove  that  they  were  really  a  church 
before  the  Sinaitic  covenant.  But  we  have  shewn 
several  proofs  that  they  were  called  a  church,  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  word,  before  they  left  Egypt, 
and  we  have  shewn  that  they  were  called  by  a  name  "  con- 
fessedly equivalent"  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
where  the  violation  of  that  covenant  is  given  as  a  reason 
for  excommunication  from  that  church.  This  su'nject 
we  hope,  with  divine  permission,  to  pursue  farther  before 
we  are  done  with  the  proposition  that  "  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a  visible  church  of 
God." 

When  we  speak  of  Abraham's  seed,  take  notice  that 
this  is  the  language  which  the  scriptures  use  on  this  very 
subject.     God  says  to  Abraham,  "  This  is  my  covenant 


(     65     ) 

^^  vvhicli  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and  you,  and  thy 
^^  SEED  after  thee  ;  every  man-child  among  you  shall  be 
"  circumcised. '^(m;  This  term  is  not  used  to  embrace 
the  children  of  Hagar  and  Keturah.  "  And  God  said, 
^•'  Sarah  thy  wife  shall  bear  thee  a  son  indeed  ;  and  thou 
"  shalt  call  his  name  Isaac  :  and  I  will  establish  my  co- 
''  venant  with  him  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  and  with 
''  HIS  SEED  after  him.''(z;)  "  And  God  said  unto  Abra- 
'^  ham,  let  it  not  be  grievous  in  thy  sight,  because  of  the 
''  lad,  and  because  of  thy  bond-w^oman;  in  all  that  Sarah 
"  hath  said  unto  thee,  hearken  unto  her  voice :  for  in 
''  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.^^(z^;j  "  Neither  be- 
''  cause  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  chil- 
''  dren :  but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  bccalled.  That  is, 
''  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are  not 
"  the  children  of  God  :  but  the  children  of  the  promise 
^'  are  counted  for  the  seed.'^(:c) 

This  ecclesiastical  seed  does  not  embrace  the  de- 
scendants of  Isaac  universally.  Reprobate  Esau,  and, 
to  a  great  degree,  his  progeny,  were  excluded,  with 
every  uncircumcised  male  of  Jacobus  posterity,  accord- 
ing to  Gen.  xvii.  14.  Moreover,  the  excommunication 
of  even  circumcised  persons  must  have  sometimes  occur- 
red. Instances  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. Cy) 
At  an  earlier  period,  Ezra  proclaimed  a  general  meet- 
ing, from  which,  if  any  man  were  absent,  "  all  his  sub- 
^'  stance  should  be  forfeited,  and  himself  separated  from 
''  the  ^T^'^  church  of  those  that  had  been  carried  away.'' 
On  this  passage.  Dr.  Gill,  the  greatest  Baptist  Commen- 


ren.  xvii.  10.  (t^)  Gen.  xvii.  19.         (w)  Gen.  xxi.  13. 

lom.  ix,  7,  8.  (i/)  John  ix.  22.  comp.  Lijke  vi,  22, 


(     66     ) 

tator,  says  that  the  absentee  from  this  meeting  '^  should 
be  excommunicated  from  them  as  a  church,  and  be  no 
more  reckoned  of  the  body  politic,  or  a  freeman  of 
Israel^  and  so  deprived  of  all  privileges,  both  in  church 
and  state. '^(z)  That  very  excommunication  which  the 
Doctor  says  was  here  threatened,  was  afterward  inflicted 
upon  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  people,  the  old 
branches  of  the  ecclesiastical  olive  tree.  Paul  says, 
^^  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  ofr.'^(a)  If, 
therefore,  there  had  been  no  engrafting  of  foreign  cions, 
the  church  would  have  been  nearly  or  altogether  ex- 
tinct. 

We  observe,  therefore,  that  the  ecclesiastical  seed 
did  not  embrace  the  descendants  of  Isaac  exclusively. 
According  to  Moses,  Edomites  were  permitted  to  ^^  enter 
into  the  Snp  church  of  the  Lord  in  their  third  genera- 
tion.''(6)  In  Isaiah, (c)  God  has  promised  great  additions 
from  Egypt  and  Assyria.  And  we  are  informed  of  the 
actual  accession  of  Ebed-Melech,  the  Ethiopian^  Rahab 
of  Jericho,  and  Ruth  the  Moabitess.(«?)  Besides  this, 
there  is  an  innumerable  multitude  whom  Paul  represents 
as  saying  "  The  branches  were  broken  off,  that  I  might 
be  grafted  in.^'(e)  Concerning  these  he  says,  "  They 
which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham  ;"(/) 
upon  the  ground,  that  "  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were 
the  promises  made."(^) 

These  materials  afford  the  following  definition,  viz. 
The  ^EED  of  Abraham  are  his  descendants  in  the  line  ol' 

(2)  Gill's  Commentary  on  Ezra  x.  8.  (a)  Rom.  xi.  20. 

{b)  Deut.  xxiii.  7,  8.  (r)  xix.  23,  24. 

Id)  Jer.  xxxviii.  7 — 12.   Matt.  i.  '>.  ie)  Rom.  xi.  19. 

(/)Gal.  iii.  9.  (5-)  Gal.  iii.  16, 


(     67     ) 

Isaac,  in  good  standing  as  professors  of  the  true  religion, 
with  others  added  to  them.  Substituting  this  periphrasis 
for  the  word  seed,  in  the  proposition  now  under  discus- 
sion, it  will  read  as  follows,  viz.  Abraham  and  his 
descendants,  in  the  line  of  Isaac,  in  good  standing  as 
professors  of  the  true  religion,  with  others  added  to 
them,  were  divinely  constituted  a  visible  church  of  God. 

It  will,  of  course,  be  understood  that  the  phrase  visible 
church  means  a  society,  distinct  from  the  body  of  the 
elect,  and  distinct  from  that  portion  of  the  elect  who 
are  already  in  glory.  These  are  called  the  invisible 
church,  and  the  church  triumphant ;  from  which  the 
visible  church,  whether  under  the  old  or  the  new  dis- 
pensation, is  quite  distinct.  It  is  a  visible  society,  acting 
as  the  consecrated  depository  of  the  oracles  and  ordi- 
nances of  revealed  religion.  With  the  substitution  of 
this  explanation,  for  the  phrase  which  it  is  intended  to 
define,  the  proposition  under  consideration  will  read  as 
follows,  viz.  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  con- 
stituted a  visible  society,  acting  as  the  consecrated 
depository  of  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of  revealed 
religion. 

In  oppugnation  of  this  position,  it  will  not  avail  to 
prove  that  the  Jews  were  a  body  politic  ;  for  this  is 
quite  consistent  with  their  being  an  ecclesiastical  body 
also :  and  the  fact  of  their  being  both  a  church  and  a 
state,  is  admitted  in  the  extract  just  now  given  from  the 
great  Baptist  commentator.  Dr.  Gill.  It  is  equally 
futile  to  produce  instances  of  a  simuUaneous  tenure  of 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  offices  ;  for  this  is  quite  common 
amongst  us,   where    church    and    state   are  certainly 


(     68     ) 

distinct.  Neither  will  it  do  to  alledge  the  moral  turpi- 
tude of  individual  members  against  the  existence  of  the 
Jewish,  any  more  than  the  Christian  church  ;  for  spotless 
purity  belongs  to  the  church  triumphant  only,  and  even 
universal  sincerity  to  the  invisible  church  only.  I  would 
also  wish  you  to  remember  that  the  question  is  not  now 
concerning  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches,  but  whether  the  Jews  were  a  church  at  all. 
That  they  were,  I  shall  endeavour  to  prove,  by  shewing 
that  they  had  the  qualifications  and  constituents  of  a 
church,  in  the  following  order  : 

1.  The  oracles  of  a  church, 

2.  The  ordinances. 

3.  The  members. 

4.  The  ofiicers. 

5.  The  constitution. 

6.  The  inspired  name  of  a  church. 

If  all  these  points  can  be  proved  from  the  word  of 
God,  we  shall  have  good  reason  for  believing  that 
Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a  visible 
church  of  God ;  and  we  shall  have  advanced  one  step 
to  the  conclusion  that  a  command  given  to  him,  for 
administering  to  infants  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church, 
is  still  binding. 

POINT  I. 

The  Jews  had  the  oracles  of  a  visible  Church  of  God. 

Paul  says,  "  unto  them  were  committed  the  Oracles  of 
''  God."(A)     The  character  and  design  of  these  oj-acles' 

i/i)  Rom.  iii.  2. 


(     69     ) 

were  evidently  not  those  of  a  mere  political  code  ;  but 
to  convey  religious  instruction,  to  testify  of  Christ,  to 
give  us  hope,  life,  wisdom  and  salvation.  Concerning 
them,  Peter  says,  ^'  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of 
^^  prophecy,  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as 
'^  unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day 
*^  dawn,  and  the  day-star  arise  in  your  hearts.''(z)  Paul 
says,  ^^  From  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  holy  scriptures 
^'  [of  the  Old  Testament]  which  are  able  to  make  thee 
^^  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
^^  Jesus.  All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
^'  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correc- 
^^  tion,  for  instruction  in  righteousness  ;  that  the  man  of 
*^  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all 
^^  good  works.'^Cy)  John  says,  ^^  The  testimony  of  Jesus 
^^  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy.'^(^)  In  addressing  the  Jews, 
our  Saviour  said,  ^^  Search  the  scriptures ;  for  in  them 
^^  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life  ;  and  they  are  they 
^^  which  testify  of  me/^  ^^  For  had  ye  believed  Moses, 
^^  ye  would  have  believed  me,  for  he  wrote  of  me.'^(/) 
When  the  rich  man  in  hell  besought  the  patriarch  in 
heaven,  to  send  an  extraordinary  messenger  to  his  five 
brethren,  ^^  Abraham  saith  unto  him,  they  have  Mose& 
"  and  the  prophets  ;  let  them  hear  them.^'  When  the 
rich  man  repeated  his  request  that  one  might  arise  from 
the  dead,  Abraham  replied,  "If  they  hear  not  Moses 
"  and  ihe  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded^ 
"  though  one  rose  from  the  dead.(^)     By  the  mouth  of 

(i)  2  Pet.  i.  19.  compare  verses  20.  21.  (J)  2  Tim.  iii.  15— ir. 
(A-)  Rev.  xix.  10.  (/)   John  v.  39.  46, 

Cm)Luke  xvi.  27—31. 


(     70     ) 

Ezekiel,  one  of  those  prophets,  God  says,  "  I  gave  them 
"  my  statutes,  and  shewed  them  my  judgments,  which, 
^^  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  even  live  in  them.  Moreover, 
"  also,  I  gave  them  my  sahbaths,  to  be  a  sign  between 
'^  me  and  them,  that  they  might  know  that  I  am  the  Lord 
"  that  sanctify  them."(n)  The  Psalmist  says,  ''  For  he 
^^  established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a  law 
'^  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers,  that  they 
"  should  make  them  known  to  their  children,  that  the 
^'  generation  to  come  might  know  them,  even  the  chil- 
^'  dren  which  should  be  born,  who  should  arise  and 
^'  declare  them  to  their  children,  that  they  might  set 
''  their  hope  in  God,  and  not  forget  the  works  of  God, 
''  but  keep  hiscommandments."(o)  On  the  declaration 
of  the  Psalmist,  that  "he  established  a  testimony  in 
"  Jacob,'^  the  great  Baptist  commentator  speaks  as 
follows,  viz.  "  This  is  established  in  the  house  of  Jacob, 
*'  (as  the  Targum  ;)  in  the  churchy  which  is  the  pillar 
*'^  and  ground  of  truth,  among  the  saints  and  people  of 
"  Godj  to  whom  it  is  delivered,  and  by  whom  it  will  be 
'*  kept,  and  with  whom  it  will  remain  throughout  all 
'•  ages,  for  it  is  the  everlasting  gospel.'^  It  is  pleasing 
to  find  such  high  Baptist  authority  as  Dr.  Gill,  admitting 
that  the  Old  Testament  oracles  contained  the  gospel, 
and  that  this  testimony  was  committed  to  Jacob  as  a 
churchy  as  the  saints  and  people  of  God, 

{n)  Ez.  XX,  11,  12.  (o)  Psalm  Ixxviii.  5—8 


(     71     ) 

POIIVT  II. 

The  Jews  had  the  ordinances  of  a  visible  Church  of  God. 

''  Who  are  Israelites  ;  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adop- 
"  tion,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  [among  which 
^^  that  with  Abraham  is  prominent,]  and  the  giving  of 
"  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises ; 
"  whose  are  the  fathers,  [among  whom  Abraham  holds  a 
"  conspicuous  place,]  and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the 
^^  flesh,  Christ  [the  substance  of  all  the  ordinances]  came, 
"  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever/'(j&)  Long  be- 
fore the  transactions  at  Sinai,  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham recognized  the  ordinance  of  circumcision.  "  And 
^*  God  said  unto  Abraham,  thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant, 
"  therefore,  thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  gene- 
'^  rations.  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  shall  keep 
"  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  every 
"  man-child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised. ^^(g)  In 
the  wilderness  God  gave  them  the  manna  which  was  a 
daily  spiritual  feast.  "  For  the  bread  of  God  is  he 
''  which  cometh  down  from  heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto 
''  the  world.  Then  said  they  unto  him.  Lord,  evermore 
'^  give  us  this  bread.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am 
"  the  bread  of  life  :  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never 
*^  hunger;  and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never 
''  thirst.''(r)  On  the  words  "  evermore  give  us  this 
bread,''  Dr.  Gill  observes,  "  but  to  such  who  are  true 
"  believers  in  Christ,  who  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is 

(/i)  Rom.  ix.  4,  5.        (9)  Gen.  xvii.  9, 10.        (r)  John  vi,  33 — 35. 


(     72     ) 

"  gracious,  Christ,  the  true  manna  and  bread  of  God,  is 
^^  all  things  to  them  ;  nor  do  they  desire  any  other:  they 
"  taste  every  thing  that  is  delightful,  and  find  every 
"  thing  that  is  nourishing  in  him.'^  Paul  connects  this 
with  the  stream  which  quenched  their  thirst.  '^  And 
^^  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat ;  and  did  all  drink 
^^  the  same  spiritual  drink  :  for  they  drank  of  that  spi- 
^^  ritual  rock  which  followed  them,  and  that  Rock  was 
^^  Christ.'^*)  On  this  passage,  Dr.  Gill  remarks  that 
'^  Christ  may  be  compared  to  the  rock,'^  ^^  in  the  sup- 
port of  his  church,''^  "  as  he  is  the  foundation  of  his 
church  and  every  believer,'^  *'  as  the  foundation  of  his 
churchy  abiding  forever.''  Now  compare  the  text  and 
the  Baptist  commentary.  The  Apostle  informs  us  that 
the  Jews,  long  before  the  Christian  dispensation,  were 
supported  by  the  spiritual  Rock  :  the  Commentator  de- 
clares that  those  who  were  thus  supported,  stand  in  re- 
lation to  Christ,  as  his  church  ;  and  the  expression  his 
CHURCH  is  thrice  repeated  in  a  few  lines.  If  there  be 
meaning  in  language,  this  points  out  the  Jews  before  the 
New  Testament  day,  as  the  church  of  Christ. 

But  my  Opponent  professes  to  produce  New  Testa- 
ment authority,  to  shew  that  the  ordinances  of  the  Jews 
were  not  such  as  should  belong  to  the  spiritual  and  hea- 
venly religion  of  the  true  God,  but  that  they  were 
worldly  and  carnal  ordinances.  Paul  says,  "  Then  ve- 
''  rily  the  first  covenant  had  also  ordinances  of  divine 
''  service,  and  a  worldhj  sanctuary.''  "  Which  stood 
^'  only  in  meats  and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordi- 

(«)  1  Cor,  X.  3,  4. 


(     73     ) 

^^  nances  imposed  on  them,  until  the  time  of  reforma- 
''  tion."(/)    To  support  him  here,  he  adduces  the  trans- 
lation and  commentary  of  the  learned  Dr.  Macknight,  a 
celebrated  Pedobaptist.     It  would  be  well  for  him  to 
examine  his  notes,  and  see  whether  this  is  not  a  mistaken 
reference.     Although  the  Dr.  had  a  tender  regard  for 
ahtiost  all  descriptions  of  error,  he  does  not  support  my 
Opponent,  on  the  point  for  which  he  is  cited.     The  Dr. 
tells  us  thftt  this  worldly  sanctuary  was  called  so,  "  not 
"  because  it  was  a  holy  place  on   earth,  and  made  of 
''  materials  furnished  from  the  earth,  but  because  it  was 
'^  a  representation  of  the  world  or  universe. ^^     It  may 
surely  be  all  this,  and  yet  a  proper  sanctuary  for  the 
worship  of  the  true  God  by  his  visible  church.     As  for 
these  carnal  ordinances,  he  calls  them  '^  ordinances  con- 
^'  cerning  the  flesh,"^  ''  respecting  the  purifying  of  the 
''  body,^^  "literally,  righteousnesses  of  the  flesh,  things 
^'  which  make    the  flesh,   not  the    spirit    righteous.'^ 
These  are  his  own  words,  in  his  translation,  commentary, 
and  notes.     These  words  are  correct,  even  where  they 
oppose  Dr.  Magee's  opinion  that,  in  some  cases,  the 
Jewish  sacrifices  make  a  real    satisfaction    to    divine 
justice.     On  these  and  the  various  ordinances  connected 
with  them,  I  believe,  with  Dr.  Gill,  "  that  they  were  all 
"  types  and  figures  of  Christ,  and  had  their  fulfilment  in 
"  him.''(w)     He  shews  that  Philo,  the  Jew,  explained 
this  worldly  sanctuary  as  Macknight  does ;  yet  surely 
Philo  believed  the  Jews  to  be  a  church.     In  opposition 
to  them  both,  however,  the  Dr.  says,  "  It  was  rather 

(0  Hebr.  ix.  1.  10.  (m)  On  Hebr.  ix.  1. 

K 


(     74     ) 

^^  either  a  type  of  the  church,  or  of  heaven,  or  of 
^^  Christ's  human  nature :  the  better  reason  of  its  being 
^^  so  called  is,  because  it  consisted  of  earthly  matter 
"  and  worldly  things ;  it  was  in  the  world,  and  only  had 
''  its  use  in  the  world,  and  so  is  opposed  to  the  heavenly 
^^  sanctuary.''(w)  None  of  these  views  have  the  least 
bearing  against  the  doctrine  that  this  worldly  sanctuary 
is  an  ecclesiastical  sanctuary,  unless  you  will  first  prove 
that  no  church  can  exist  in  the  world.  But  that  we  may 
not  be  at  a  loss  concerning  its  ecclesiastical  character, 
God  said  to  Solomon,  "  I  have  heard  thy  prayer,  and 
"  have  chosen  this  place  to  myself,  for  an  house  of 
^'  sacrifice."  "  Now  mine  eyes  shall  be  open,  and  mine 
*^  ears  attent  unto  thy  prayer,  that  is  made  in  this  place. 
''  For  now  have  I  chosen  and  sanctified  this  house,  that 
"  my  name  may  be  there  forever :  and  mine  eyes  and 
^'  mine  heart  shall  be  there  perpetually."(z;)  If  a  holy 
residence  of  God,  consecrated  to  sacrifice  and  prayer, 
is  not  dignified  enough  to  be  called  an  ecclesiastical 
sanctuary,  I  should  like  to  know  where  you  would  find  a 
church  in  our  day.  This  doctrine  was  held  by  the 
Jews,  in  opposition  to  the  Samaritans,  down  to  the  time 
of  our  Saviour,  to  whom  the  Samaritan  woman  applied 
to  decide  the  controversy.  This  gave  him  an  oppor- 
tunity of  instructing  her  in  the  new  dispensation,  which 
has  laid  the  dispute  asleep  almost  ever  since,  until,  m 
late  days,  it  has  been  revived  by  some  Baptists,  who 
have  a  zeal  not  according  to  knowledge.  Among  those 
I  am  happy  to  find  that  the  pious  and  learned  Dr.  Gill  is 

(m)  On  Hebr.  ix.  1.  C^O  2  Chr.  vil  12, 15, 16. 


(     75     ) 

not  numbered.  He  comments  upon  the  words  of  the 
Samaritan  woman,  as  follows,  viz.  ^^  Jlnd  ye  say  that  in 
''  Jerusalem  is  the  place  where  men  ought  to  worship; 
^^  that  is,  in  the  temple  there;  who  urged,  and  very 
'^  rightly,  that  God  had  chosen  that  place  to  put  his 
'^  name,  and  fix  his  worship  there  ;  and  had  ordered 
''  them  to  come  thither,  and  bring  their  offerings  and  sacri- 
^^  fices,  arid  to  keep  their  Passover  and  other  feasts.^Y^) 

POINT  III. 

The  Jewish  society  had  the  members  of  a  visible  church. 

The  ordinances  of  which  we  have  been  speaking, 
were  emblematical  of  sanctification,  and  required 
evidence  of  sanctification  in  their  adult  communicants. 
It  is  true  that  this  is  a  thing  of  which  my  Opponent  has  no 
very  high  opinion,  as  he  scoffs  at  the  very  Baptists 
themselves,  for  requiring  of  candidates  some  accownt  of 
their  religious  experience,  preparatory  to  initiation. 
But  with  pious  Baptists  this  is  esteemed  important.  So 
do  the  scriptures  esteem  it  important  in  the  subjects 
of  circumcision.  "  Circumcise,  therefore,  the  foreskin 
^'  of  your  hearts,  and  be  no  more  stiff-necked. '^(^) 
^'  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and 
^^  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  lord  thy  God,  with 
^'  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest 
''  live."(^)  "  All  these  nations  are  uncircumcised, 
^'  and  all  the  house  of  Israel  are  uncircumcised  in  the 

(w)  Gill  on  John  iv.  20.  For  proof  he  refers  to  Deut.  xii.  5.  6.  xvj,  2, 
{t)  Deut,  X.  16.  {ij)  Deut.  xxx.  6, 


(     76     ) 

^'  heart.''(2)  '^  Ye  stifFnecked  and  uncircumcised  in 
"  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
^'  as  your  fathers  did^  so  do  ye. ''(a)  "  And  thou  shalt 
^'  say  to  the  rebellious;  even  to  the  house  of  Israel,  thus 
^'  saith  the  Lord  God,  0  ye  house  of  Israel,  let  it  suffice 
^'  you  of  all  your  abominations,  in  that  ye  have  brought 
^'  into  my  sanctuary  strangers,  uncircumcised  in  heart, 
^'  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh,  to  be  in  my  sanctuary,  to 
^^  pollute  it,  even  my  house,  when  ye  offer  my  bread, 
"  the  fat  and  the  blood,  and  they  have  broken  my  cove- 
^^  nant,  because  of  all  your  abominations.'^(6) 

It  is  one  glorious  feature  of  the  visible  church,  that 
it  requires  evidence  of  regeneration  in  those  who  are 
candidates  for  membership.  The  scriptures  which 
have  just  now  been  read,  plainly  shew  that  the  Jewish 
society  had  this  feature  of  a  church  :  for,  according  to 
these  texts,  they  violated  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
whenever  they  received  proselytes  without  evidence  of 
piety.  This  is  so  conspicuously  the  spirit  of  these 
passages,  that  I  know  no  way  of  escaping  their  force, 
but  by  proving  that  they  are  not  intended  for  the  literal 
Israel,  but  that  they  are  prophecies  exclusively  appli- 
cable to  the  Christian  church.  Dr.  Gill  says  that  the 
last  authority  which  I  have  quoted  (Ez.  xliv.  6,  7.) 
^^  well  agrees  with  these  declining  churches  in  the  latter 
*^  day,  and  even  in  our  times  :'^  yet,  unhappily  for  my 
opponent,  the  Dr.  says  at  the  same  time,  that  the  picture 
there  given  "  is  a  character  of  literal  Israel  from  the 
^'  beginning.''     The  Dr.   tells  us  that  they  are  con- 

(z)  Jer.  ix.  26.  («)  Acts  vii.  51, 

(A)  Ez.  xliv.  6,  r,  . 


X 


(     77     ) 

demned  for  introducing  '^  strangers,"  because  they  are 
^^  unregenerate  men,  who  are  in  a  state  of  alienation  and 
^^estrangement  to  divine  and  spiritual  things."  The 
^^  uncircumcised  in  heart/'  whom  they  were  forbidden 
to  receive  as  members,  Dr.  Gill  understands  to  be  those 
^'  who  never  were  pricked  in  the  heart  for  sin,  or  felt  any 
*^  pain  there  on  account  of  it ;  never  had  the  hardness 
^^  of  their  heart  removed,  or  the  impurity  of  it  dis- 
^^  covered  to  them  ;  never  were  filled  with  shame  and 
^^  loathing  because  of  it ;  or  ever  put  off  the  body  of 
^^  sins  in  a  coui;se  of  conversation ;  or  renounced  their 
*^  own  righteousness."  This  last  text  censures  the 
church  for  polluting  the  sanctuary  by  the  introduction 
of  persons  who  were  even  uncircumcised  in  flesh. 
These,  the  Dr.  says,  were  "  carnal  as  they  were  born  ; 
^^  men  in  the  flesh,  in  a  state  of  nature,  mind  and  savour 
'^  the  things  of  the  flesh,  and  do  the  works  of  it ;  having 
^^  never  been  taught  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  deny  un- 
^'  godliness  and  worldly  lusts,  and  to  abstain  from  fleshly 
^^  ones :  or  who  put  their  trust  in  the  flesh,  in  outward 
^^  things,  in  carnal  privileges,  and  external  righteous- 
^^  ness.  These  the  Lord  complains  were  brought  to  be 
^'  in  my  sanctuary^  to  pollute  it,  even  my  house  ;  either 
^^  to  be  members  here,  and  partake  of  all  the  ordinances 
^^  and  privileges  of  the  Lord^s  house;  or  to  officiate 
^^  here  as  priests  and  ministers  of  the  Lord."  Accord- 
ing to  these  words  of  Dr.  Gill,  he  must  have  thought, 
that  evidence  of  regeneration  was  as  requisite  to  mem- 
bership in  the  Lord's  house,  under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  as  under  the  New.  No  wonder  then,  that 
he  thought  the  Jews  a  church.     This  opinion  is  confirm- 


{     78     ) 

ed  in  the  New  Testament,  by  the  allusions  which  it 
makes  to  the  Old ;  '^  and  you  being  dead  in  your  sins, 
''  and  in  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  hath  he 
^^  quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you  all 
'^  trespasses.^^(c) 

On  this  subject  I  would  wish  you  attentively  to  read, 
and  devoutly  to  consider  Psalm  1.  7 — 23.  On  the  first 
of  these  verses,  which  begins,  '^  Hear  0  my  people,'^ 
Dr.  Gill  remarks,  ''  This  is  an  address  to  the  people  of 
^^  the  Jews,  whom  God  had  chosen  to  be  his  people  above 
^'  all  others,  and  who  professed  themselves  to  be  hispeo- 
^^ pie;  but  a  lo-ammi  was  about  to  be  written  upon 
^^  them,  being  a  people  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears, 
'^  refusing  to  hear  the  great  prophet  of  the  churchy  him 
^'  that  spake  from  heaven."  Here  people  and  church 
are  used  synonymously,  as  they  are  by  my  Opponent ; 
and  the  Jews  are  justly  said  to  be,  by  their  own  profes- 
sion, and  the  choice  of  God,  his  people;  and  Christ  is 
said  to  be  the  prophet  of  their  churchy  as  well  as  of  the 
New  Testament  church. 

I  have  the  same  request  to  make  concerning  your 
perusal  of  Is.  i.  10 — 20.  The  ninth  verse  predicts  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  threatened  an  utter 
extinction  of  God's  people,  ''  except  the  Lord  had  left 
^^  unto  us  a  very  small  remnant."  "And  this,"  says 
Dr.  Gill,  ^'  was  done  unto  us,  for  the  sake  of  his  churchy 
^'  that  that  might  continue,  and  he  might  have  a  seed  to 
^'  serve  him."  Here  the  Dr.  considers  the  Christian 
^^  dispensation  a  continuance  of  the  us  to  whom  Isaiah 

'  (r)  Coll.  ii.  13. 


(     79     ) 

belonged  ;  and  this  us  he  calls  a  church.  The  context 
to  which  I  have  referred  you,  shews  that  its  members 
were  called  to  the  same  holiness  which  is  required  in 
Christians.  Thus  does  Dr.  Gill  explain  God^s  command 
by  Moses,  that  the  Jews  should  be  "  an  holy  nation.^^((/) 
He  says  that  it  means  ''  being  separated  from  all  others, 
''  and  devoted  to  the  worship  and  service  of  God,  having 
^^  holy  laws  and  holy  ordinances,  and  a  holy  service, 
^*  and  a  holy  place  to  perform  it  in,  and  holy  persons  to 
'^  attend  unto  it,  as  they  afterwards  had.'^  The  same 
great  Baptist  writer  declares  the  ^'  holy  seed'^  mentioned 
by  Ezra,(^)  to  be  ^^such  as  the  Lord  had  separated 
^^  from  other  nations,  chosen  them  to  be  k\\  holy  people 
'^  above  all  others,  and  devoted  them  to  his  service  and 
^'  worship. ^^  When  the  most  excellent  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  speak  thus  of  the  Jews;  but  especially 
when  the  holy  and  infallible  word  of  God  speaks  thus  of 
the  constitutional  obligations  of  members  of  the  Jewish 
society,  can  you  wonder  at  us  for  calling  them  a  visible 
church  ? 

POINT  IV. 

The  Jewish  society  had  the  officers  of  a  visible  church. 

The  priesthood  was  an  office  consecrated  to  ecclesiasti- 
cal purposes,  and  therefore  was  guarded  from  intrusion  by 
severe  penalties.  After  the  earth  had  swallowed  up 
Korah^  Dathan  and  Abiram,  "  There  came  out  a  fire 
''  from  the  Lord,  and  consumed  the  two  hundred  and 

(c?)  Ex.  xix.  6.  (e)  ix.  2, 


(     80     ) 

^'  fifty  men  that  offered  incense. "(/)  "  And  the  anger 
"  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  against  Uzza,  and  God  smote 
''  him  there  for  his  error,  and  there  he  died  by  the  ark 
"  of  God/^(^)  "  And  they  withstood  Uzziah  the  king, 
"  and  said  unto  him,  it  appertaineth  not  unto  thee, 
"  Uzziah,  to  burn  incense  unto  the  Lord,  but  to  the 
^'  priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  that  are  consecrated  to 
"  burn  incense :  go  out  of  the  sanctuary  ;  for  thou  hast 
''  trespassed  ;  neither  shall  it  be  for  thine  honour  from 
"  the  Lord  God.'^(A) 

There  is  a  very  great  contrast  between  my  Opponent 
and  the  old  fashioned  Baptists,  about  the  officers  of  the 
church,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  shall  be  support- 
ed. My  Opponent  is  for  putting  down  the  clergy  at 
a  blow,  as  not  only  unworthy  of  being  maintained  by 
the  church,  but  unworthy  of  any  distinction  by  minis- 
terial ordination.  He  is  as  complete  a  leveller  as  any 
infidel.  This  arises  not  from  any  love  for  liberty  and 
equality,  but  from  a  desire  to  monopolize  in  his  own 
person,  all  that  influence  which  is  now  divided  among 
the  clergy  of  his  own  denomination  and  others,  and 
from  a  desire  to  pervert  to  the  destruction  of  souls  that 
influence  which  they  should  use  for  edification.  His 
way  to  scatter  the  sheep  is  to  smite  the  shepherd.  Not 
so  our  good  old  Dr.  Gill,  who,  in  every  thing  except 
public  disputation,  is  worth  a  thousand  of  him.  In 
commenting  upon  one  of  EzekieFs  appropriations  for 
the  priests,  he  says,  "  This  holy  portion  of  land,  ex- 
cepting that  which  is  for  the  sanctuary,  is  to  be  for  the 

)  Num.  xvi.  35.  {g)  2  Sam.  vi.  7. 

)  2  Chr.  xxvi.  18. 


a 


(     81      ) 

'^  use  of  the  priests,  to  build  houses  to  dwell  in ;  signi- 
''  fying  that  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  to  be  taken 
^'  care  of,  and  sufficient  provision  made  for  their  main- 
^'  tainance/^(e)  In  another  place  he  speaks  of  "  the 
"  ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  shall  have  a  sufficient 
^^  maintenance  from  the  churches  of  Christ,  as  the 
^'  priests  had  under  the  law."  This  last  is  on  a  verse 
in  which  the  prophet  mentions  a  spot  which  '^  shall  be  a 
^'  place  for  their  houses,"  on  which  the  Dr.  observes, 
"  In  this  large  spot  shall  be  many  congregated  churches^ 
"  houses  of  the  living  God,  where  his  priests  and  peo- 
^'  pie  dwell,  and  will  be  serving  and  praising  him."(y) 
On  a  similar  subject,  a  little  before  this,  he  says, 
^'  These  [chambers]  were  for  holy  persons  to  dwell  in, 
^^  and  for  holy  things  to  be  done  in,  as  the  churches  of 
'^  Christ  are  ;  they  consist  of  holy  persons,  men  called 
'^  with  a  holy  calling,  and  in  them  the  holy  word  of 
^'  God  is  preached,  and  holy  ordinances  administer- 
^^  ed.^^(A)  Thus  does  the  existence  of  ecclesiastical 
officers  in  the  Jewish  society,  prove  them  to  be  a  visible 
church ;  and  thus  does  the  best  Baptist  authority  admit 
that  they  were  as  real  a  church  '^  as  the  churches  of 
Christ  are," 

POINT  V. 

The  Jewish  Society  had  the  constitution  of  a  visible  church. 

Whatsoever  may  have  been  said  to  Abraham  and  his 
geed  concerning  temporal  and  political  blessings,  God's 

(0  Ez.  xlviii.  10.  {j)  Ez.  xlv.  4. 

(A-)Kz,  xlii.  13. 

L 


(     82     ) 

covenant  with  them  did,  nevertheless,  contemplate 
eternal,  spiritual,  and  ecclesiastical  favours.  ^'  And  I 
'  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
'  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for 
^  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and 
^  to  thy  seed  after  thee  :  and  I  will  give  unto  thee  and 
^  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a 
'  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  pos- 
'  session,  and  I  will  be  their  God.^^(/)  "  Now  therefore, 
^  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  cove- 
^  nant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me, 
'  above  all  people,  for  all  the  earth  is  mine ;  and  ye 
'  shall  be  unio  me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  an  holy 
'  nation. '^(wi)  "  The  chariots  of  God  are  twenty 
'  thousand,  even  thousands  of  angels,  the  Lord  is  among 
^  them,  as  in  Sinai,  in  the  holy  place ;  thou  hast  as- 
'  cended  on  high,  thou  hast  led  captivity  captive,  thou 
^  hast  received  gifts  for  men,  yea,  even  for  the  rebel- 
'  lious  also,  that  the  Lord  might  dwell  among  them. 
'  Blessed  be  the  Lord  which  daily  loadeth  us  with 
'  benefits,  even  the  God  of  our  salvation.  Selah.  He 
'  that  is  our  God  is  the  God  of  salvation;  and  unto  God 
'  the  Lord  belong  the  issues  from  death. '^(??)  "  He 
'  sent  redemption  unto  his  people,  he  hath  commanded 
^  his  covenant  forever ;  Holy  and  reverend  is  his 
^  name.^'(o)  "  For  he  remembered  his  holy  promise, 
'  and  Abraham  his  servant,  and  he  brought  forth  his 
'  people  with  joy,  and  his  chosen  with  gladness."(/;) 
^  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  for  he  hath  visited 

(/)  Gen.  xvii.  7.  8.  (m)  Ex.  xix.  5.  6.         («)  Ps.  Ixviii.  17—20 

(o)  Ps.  cxi.  9.  (/?)  Ps.  cv.  42.  43. 


(     83     ) 

"  and  redeemed  his  people  ;'^  "  to  perform  the  mercy 
"  promised  to  our  fathers,  and  to  remember  his  holy 
"  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  Father 
''  Abraham. ^'(5') 

Among  the  authorities  just  now  quoted,  one  of  them 
mentions  Sinai :  but  it  will  be  observed  that  it  does  not 
refer  to  the  transactions  at  Sinai,  for  the  origin  of  the 
church.  Yet  that  very  ^passage  proves  that  the  Jews 
were  a  church.  It  is  in  this  capacity  "  that  the  Lord 
"  God''  promises  to  "  dwell  among  them  ;''  "  that  is,'' 
says  Dr.  Gill,  "  that  they  by  the  gifts  and  graces  of  the 
''  Spirit  bestowed  on  them,  might  become  a  fit  habitation 
^'  for  God ;  or  that  they,  the  rebellious,  being  now 
^'  partakers  of  the  grace  of  God  and  his  gifts,  might 
"  dwell  with  the  Lord  God  in  his  churches  ;  enjoy 
^'  his  divine  presence,  and  have  communion  with  him 
'^  in  his  word  and  ordinances.^^  The  salvation  men- 
tioned in  the  very  next  verse,  Dr.  Gill  does  not  fritter 
down  to  a  mere  temporal  deliverance,  but  calls  it  ^'  tem- 
^^  poral,  spiritual,  and  eternal  salvation."(r)  It  is  true 
that  Gill  calls  the  redemption  mentioned  in  one  of  the 
texts,(5)  a  "  temporal  redemption,  as  typical  of  the 
^^  spiritual  and  eternal  one ;"  but  in  another  of  these 
texts,  he  believes  the  spiritual  and  eternal  redemption 
to  be  meant,  and  the  typical  one  only  alluded  to.  The 
following  are  his  words,  viz.  "^  For  he  hath  visited  and 
"  redeemed  his  people,  as  he  did  Israel  of  old,  Ex.  iii. 
*^  16,  17,  when  the  Lord  looked  upon  them,  and  de- 
''  livered  them  out  of  the  bondage  of  Egypt,  and  which 

(7)  Luke  i.  68.  72.  TS.     (r)  Gill  on  Ps.  Ixviii,  18.  19.     (,?)  Ps.  cxi.  9. 


(     84     ) 

'^  was  a  type  and  resemblance  of  redemption  by  Christ, 
^^  and  to  which  reference  here  seems  to  be  had/^  But 
although  the  redemption  here  contemplated,  refers  to  a 
temporal  deliverance,  the  Dr.  says  that  it  "  intends  the 
"  spiritual  and  eternal  redemption  of  them  by  the  price 
^^  of  his  blood,  from  the  slavery  of  sin ;  the  bondage  of 
^^  the  law,  and  curse  of  it,  and  the  captivity  of  Satan, 
'^  and  a  deliverance  out  of  the  hands  of  every  enemy ; 
"  a  redemption  which  reaches  both  to  soul  and  body, 
^^  and  secures  from  all  condemnation  and  wrath  to  come  ; 
'^  and  includes  every  blessing  in  it,  as  justification, 
"  forgiveness  of  sins,  adoption,  sanctification,  and 
'^  eternal  life,  and  is  a  plenteous,  full,  complete,  and 
"  everlasting  one."(0 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  the  redemption  here  mentioned 
is  not  merely  a  temporal  or  political  one,  but  a  spiritual 
and  eternal  redemption.  It  is  also  plain  that  it  is  con- 
ferred upon  God's  " people,^^  a  word  which  my  Oppo- 
nent considers  equivalent  to  church.  The  text  more- 
over informs  us  that  this  was  done,  "  to  perform  the 
mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,'^  not  at  Mount  Sinai,  but 
"  to  remember  his  holy  covenant ,  the  oath  which  he 
^'  sware  to  our  father  Abraham  ;''  many  hundred  years 
before  the  transactions  at  Sinai. 

It  is  in  reference  to  this  holy  covenant,  that  Moses 
said  to  Israel,  "  thou  art  an  holy  pcople.^^  "  Not  sanc- 
''  tified''  says  Dr.  Gill,  '^  in  a  spiritual  sense,  or  having 
"  principles  of  grace  and  holiness  in  them,  from  whence 
**  holy  actions  sprang,  at  least,  not  all  of  them  ;  but 

(/)  Gill  on  Luke  i.  63. 


(     85     ) 

^^  they  were  separated  from  all  other  people  in  the 
^^  world  to  the  pure  worship  and  service  of  God  in  an 
'^  external  manner^  and  therefore  were  to  avoid  all 
^'  idolatry  and  every  appearance  of  it.'^  The  remain- 
der of  the  verse  which  speaks  of  their  being  chosen  to 
be  a  special  people,  the  Dr.  understands  to  mean  "  for 
^'  special  service  and  worship,  and  to  enjoy  special 
^^  privileges  and  benefits,  civil  and  religious,^\u) 
Elsewhere,  when  Moses  speaks  of  their  being  ^^  an  holi/ 
^'  people  unto  the  Lord,'^  Gill  explains  it,  "  set  apart 
^'  by  him  from  all  other  people,  and  devoted  to  his 
''  worship  and  service,  and  many  of  them  were  sancti- 
''  fied  and  made  holy  in  a  special  and  spiritual  sense." 
The  remainder  of  the  verse  calls  them  a  peculiar  peo- 
ple. Gill  explains  this  peculiarity  as  consisting  '^  espe- 
"  cially  in  things  sacred,^^[v)  My  aim  is  to  prove  from 
scripture,  that  Abraham  and  his  seed  have  the  constitu- 
tion of  a  visible  church  ;  that  is,  that  they  were  a  conse- 
crated depository  of  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of  revealed 
religion.  Dr.  Gill  has  proved  from  scripture,  that  they 
were  ''  set  apart'^  as  a  holy  people,  a  special  people,  a 
peculiar  people,  "  especially  in  things  sacred"  and 
"  religious :"  all  this,  too,  upon  the  constitution  of  "  his 
holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  father 
Abraham."     They  were  therefore  a  church. 

(m)  Gill  on  Ex.  vii.  6.  (r)  GUI  on  Ex.  xiv,  2, 


(     86     ) 

POIIVT  VI. 

The  Jewish  society  had  the  express,  inspired,  and  unequivocal 
KAME  of  a  church. 

These  points  are  professedly  intended  to  support  the 
proposition  that  "  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely 
constituted  a  visible  church  of  God.'^  Soon  after  that 
proposition  was  announced^  some  remarks  were  made, 
and  more  were  promised,  on  the  name  of  a  church.  My 
farther  progress  on  this  subject,  my  Opponent  has 
endeavoured  to  obstruct  by  the  authority  of  Dr.  Mason, 
who  has  the  appearance  of  being  against  me.  He  speaks 
as  follows,  viz.  "  The  word  church,  derived  from  the 
"  Greek,  xv^iaxov,  signifies  the  house  of  the  Lord, 
"  and  marks  the  property  which  he  has  in  it.  But  the 
'^  original  words  which  it  is  employed  to  translate,  sig- 
"  nify  a  different  thing.  The  Hebrew  words  7Hp  and 
"  n^i^  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  corresponding  one 
^'  ixx-Kviaio,  in  the  New,  all  signify  an  assembly,  espe- 
''  cially  one  convened  by  invitation  or  appointment. 
''  That  this  is  their  generic  sense,  no  scholar  will  deny  ; 
*^  nor  that  their  particular  applications  are  ultimately 
''  resolvable  into  it.  Hence  it  is  evident  that  from  the 
"  terms  themselves  nothing  can  be  concluded  as  to  the 
"  nature  and  extent  of  the  assembly  which  they  denote. 
"  Whenever  either  of  the  two  former  occurs  in  the  Old 
''  Testament,  or  the  other  in  the  New,  you  are  sure  of 
"  an  assembly,  but  of  nothing  more.  What  that  asseni- 
"  bly  is,  and  wivom  it  comprehends,  you  must  learn 
''  from  the  connexion  of  the  term,  and  the  subject  of 


I 


(     87     ) 

^^  the  writer.'^  {tv)  The  Dr.  then  proceeds  to  give 
instances  of  the  diversified  application  of  these  several 
words. 

When  this  eminent  scholar  observes  that  we  raust 
learn  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  from  the  connexion  of 
the  term,  and  the  subject  of  the  writer/'  he  says  what 
is  true  not  only  of  the  word  church,  but  of  those  words 
which  all  will  confess  to  have  been  reduced  from  their 
generic  signification  to  an  appropriate  meaning.  This 
remark  may  be  elucidated  by  the  title  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished ofiicer  in  the  church.  It  is  the  word  apostle. 
Concerning  this,  we  may  say  as  Dr.  Mason  has  oi  church, 
"  What  an  Apostle  is,  and  whom  it  points  out,  whether 
''  an  ordinary  or  extraordinary  agent^  whether  Christ, 
'^  one  of  the  twelve,  or  any  other  person,  you  must 
"  learn  from  the  connexion  of  the  term,  and  the  sub- 
"  ject  of  the  writer P  The  Greek  word  signifies  a 
messenger. (x)  "  That  this  is  its  generic  sense,  no 
scholar  will  deny,  nor  that  its  particular  applications 
are  ultimately  resolvable  into  it.  Hence  it  is  evident 
that  from  the  term  itself,  nothing  can  be  concluded  as  to 
the  character  of  the  messenger  which  it  denotes. 
Whenever  it  occurs  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  you 
are  sure  of  a  messenger,  but  of  nothing  more." 

After  thus  applying  all  Dr.  Mason's  remarks  to  the 
word  apostle  as  well  as  church,  suppose  a  question  to 
arise  concerning  the  apostleship  of  Paul,  as  one  has  arisen 
concerning  the  ecclesiastical  standing  of  the  Jews.    Was 


(w)  Mason  on  tKe  Church,  pp.  8—10.     Christian's  Magazine,  vol,  1. 
pp.  54— 5f). 

(x)  See  Phil.  ii.  25.  and  1  Kings  xiv.  6,  in  the  Greek. 


(     88     ) 

Paul  an  ordinary  messenger  of  ordinary  matters^  from 
one  ordinary  man  to  another;  or  was  he  an  extraordinary, 
spiritual,  ecclesiastical  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ?  I  say 
that  he  was  the  latter,  and  I  very  naturally  try  to  prove 
it,  by  shewing  that  the  scriptures  apply  to  him  the 
express,  inspired,  and  unequivocal  name  of  an  Apostle. 
This  conclusion  is  so  far  from  being  forbidden  by  Dr. 
Mason's  remarks,  that  it  is  attained  in  the  very  way 
which  he  points  out,  "  from  the  co7%nexion  of  the  term, 
and  the  subject  of  the  writer."  From  these  we  plainly 
see  that  the  term  is  applied  to  Paul,  not  in  its  generic 
sense,  but  in  its  appropriate  meaning.  It  points  him 
out,  not  as  an  ordinary,  secular  messenger  from  man, 
but  as  an  inspired  ecclesiastical  messenger  from  our 
divine  Redeemer.  Shall  we  say  then,  that  his  being  so 
called,  in  such  a  connexion,  is  no  evidence  of  his  apos- 
tleship,  in  the  highest  sense  in  which  the  term  is  applied 
to  men?  Shall  we  say  that  the  mere  fact  that  a  word 
originally  has  a  generic  sense,  shall  forever  disqualify 
it  from  pointing  out  a  particular  object?  Shall  we  say, 
that  because  it  has  a  variety  of  meanings,  it  can  have  no 
definite  meaning  at  all  ?  If  so,  then  let  us  be  consistent, 
and  openly  relinquish  the  common  and  well  established 
proof  of  Christ's  divinity,  from  the  fact  that  the  express, 
inspired,  and  unequivocal  name  of  God  is  applied  to  him 
in  the  scriptures.  But  if  we  admit,  as  all  real  Christians 
do,  that  the  application  of  this  name  to  Christ,  proves 
him  to  be  the  true  God ;  and  that  the  application  of 
another  name  to  Paul,  proves  him  to  be  an  apostle  of 
God  ;  then  the  application  of  a  third  name  to  the  Jews 
will  prove  them  to  have  been  the  church  of  God. 


(     89     ) 

When  speaking  on  this  subject  before,  I  quoted  some 
texts  wliich  contained  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  in  the 
Septuagint,  two  words,  both  of  which  signify  churchy 
as  Dr.  Mason  has  correctly  informed  you.  Other  pas- 
sages in  which  the  same  thing  occurs,  I  shall  have  to 
quote  now.  That  these  two  synonimous  nouns  are 
connected  by  a  simple  conjunction,  is  accounted  for, 
upon  a  principle,  which  is  remarkable  in  the  Hebrew, 
though  not  peculiar  to  that  language.  It  is,  that  nouns 
are  often  attached  to  other  nouns,  to  answer  the  purpose 
of  adjectives  and  participles. (y)  When,  therefore,  7np 
the  church,  and  HTJ^  the  church,  are  put  together,  they 
appear  to  signify  the  meeting  met,  or  the  congregation 
congregated,  or  the  church  assembled.  Thus  does  Dr. 
Gill  understand  it  in  Prov.  v.  14,  where  the  Septuagint 
translates  these  words  by  ixxxr^aio.  and  awayi^yri.  "  I  was  al- 
most in  all  evil  in  the  midst  of  the  church  assemhled,^^ 
The  Dr.  understands  this  to  mean,  ^^in  the  house  of 
God,  attending  public  worship,^^  "  even  in  the  presence 
and  before  the  people  of  God.'^  This  great  Baptist 
Commentator  evidently  considered  this  text  a  proof  that 
the  Old  Testament  worshippers  were  the  visible  church 
of  God  :  for  what  else  can  he  mean  by  calling  them  the 
people  of  God,  attending  public  worship,  in  the  house 
of  God? 

In  the  Septuagint  of  Levit.  iv.  13,  both  these  words 


(y)  "  When  one  substantive  is  joined  to  another  by  a  copulative,  the 
one'  must  be  translated  as  governing  the  other. "  Macknight's  fourth  Pre- 
liminary Essay,  Section  19.  **  As  the  Jews  had  but  few  adjectives  in  their 
language,  they  had  recourse  to  substantives,  in  order  to  supply  their 
place."  Home's  seventh  rule  on  the  Hebraisms  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  same  examples,  in  part,  are  adduced  by  both. 

M 


(     90     ) 

are  rendered  ewayt^ytj,  ''  And  if  the  whole  n"iy 
church  of  Israel  sin  through  ignorance^  and  the  thing 
be  hid  from  the  eyes  of  Snpll  the  church.'^  On  this 
text  Dr.  Gill  quotes,  with  approbation^  the  following 
words  of  Ainsw^orth ;  ^Hhat  the  church  may  err,  and 
*^  the  thing  be  hid  from  the  eyes  of  the  assembly,  con- 
gregation, or  church)  so  that  they  don't  know  that  it  is 
a  sin  which  they  have  committed." 

In  Prov.  xxi.  16,  where  the  LXX  has  the  same  render- 
ing, ^^  the  connexion  of  the  term"  shews  that  the  word 
Snp  does  not  mean  the  church  of  God,  but  "  an  assem- 
"  bly"  of  Unitarians  or  Papists,  Polytheists  or  Atheists. 
*^  The  man  that  wandereth  out  of  the  way  of  under 
^^  standing,  shall  remain  in  the  congregatio7i  of  the 
<^  dead." 

In  Prov.  xix.  20,  where  the  same  words  occur  for 
church)  in  the  Hebrew  and  LXX,  "  the  connexion  of 
**  the  term"  shews  that  it  means  the  church  of  God,  ex- 
communication from  which.  Gill  thinks  may  be  intend- 
ed.fe) 

The  following  five  texts  have  Hli^  in  the  Hebrew, 
and  ovvayu^y^  in  the  LXX.  "  Whosoever  cateth  that 
which  is  leavened,  even  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
from  the  church  of  Israel. "(a)  To  be  cut  off  ^^  from 
'^  the  Israelitish  church- state,  and  have  no  communion 
"  in  it,  or  partake  of  the  ordinances  of  it,"  is  one  of 
several  alternatives,  which  Gill  thinks  may  be  here  in- 
tended.    On  this  and  the  last  text,  the  existence  of  the 

(z^  Compare  his  note  on  verse  13,  to  which  he  refers, 
(a)  Ex.  xii.  19.  Comp.  15,  and  Gjll  on  the  latter,  to  which  he  refer* 
fron>  the  former. 


(     91     ) 

tsraelitish  church  is  taken  for  granted  by  this  preemi- 
nent scholar  of  the  Baptist  Society. 

God  directed  Moses  to  have  two  silver  trumpets  made, 
^'  for  the  calling  of  the  church,  and  for  the  journeying 
''  of  the  camps/'(Z>)  On  this  Gill  says,  "  Saints  are 
^'  pilgrims  and  travellers  here  ;  they  are  passing  through 
^'  a  wilderness,  their  way  is  attended  with  many  diffi- 
^^  culties  ;  Canaan  is  the  place  they  are  travelling  to*'' 

When  two  and  a  half  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  built  an 
altar  before  they  crossed  the  Jordan,  the  rest  of  the 
church  thought  them  apostates  from  the  true  religion, 
and  sent  a  deputation  to  them  on  this  subject.  Gill 
copies  our  translation  of  the  introduction  of  their  messages, 
and  comments  upon  it  as  follows,  viz.  "  '  Thus  saith  the 
"  whole  congregation  of  the  Lord,* — By  whom  they 
^•'  were  sent,  and  whom  they  represented ;  and  they 
^'  don't  call  them  the  congregation  of  Israel,  but  of  the 
^'  Lord,  because  it  was  not  on  a  civil  but  religious 
^'  account  they  were  come,  and  not  to  plead  their  own 
^'  cause,  but  the  cause  of  God  ;  and  not  so  much  to 
'^  shew  a  concern  for  their  own  honour  and  interest,  as 
^^  for  the  glory  of  God."  If  they  were  a  religious,  and 
not  a  civil  assembly  ;  if  they  were  a  congregation  of  the 
Lord,  and  not  of  man  ;  and  if,  (as  the  text  proves,  and 
Gill  admits,)  they  acted  in  these  respects,  as  a  visible 
corporation,  then  they  were  just  what  you  and  I  would 
call  the  visible  church  of  God, 

In  the  same  sense  ought  the  following  instance  t6  be 
understood.     ^*  Praise  ye  the  Lord,  I  will  praise  the 

{b)  Num.  X.  2, 


(    93     ) 

*^  Lord  with  my  whole  heart,  in  the  assembly  of  the 
^^  upright,  and  in  the  church,^\c) 

The  following  authority  seems  to  unite  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  privileges,  and  to  refer  them  all,  not  to  the 
Sinaitic  covenant  made  with  their  fathers,  whose  car- 
cases fell  in  the  wilderness,  but  to  the  older  covenant 
made  with  their  father  Abraham,  and  confirmed  to  Isaac 
and  Jacob.  ^^  And  because  he  loved  thy  fathers,  there- 
fore he  chose  their  seed  after  them/'(c?)  Gill  confirms 
my  interpretation  as  follows,  viz.  '^  '  And  because  he 
^'  loved  thy  fathers,' — Not  their  immediate  fathers, 
''  whose  carcases  fell  in  the  wilderness,  and  entered  not 
^'  into  the  good  land  because  of  their  unbelief,  but  their 
'^  more  remote  fathers  or  ancestors,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
^^  Jacob,  who  had  some  singular  testimonies  of  the  love 
*'  of  God  to  them.  Abraham  is  called  the  friend  of 
^'  God,  and  Isaac  was  the  son  of  promise  in  whom  the 
''  seed  was  called ;  and  Jacob  is  particularly  said  to  be 
^^  loved  by  God,  when  Esau  was  hated  :  '  therefore  he 
*^  chose  their  seed  after  them ;'  not  to  eternal  life  and 
^'  salvation,  but  to  the  enjoyment  of  external  blessings 
^^  and  privileges,  to  be  called  by  his  name,  and  to  set  up 
^'  his  name  and  worship  among  them,  and  to  be  a  special 
''  people  to  him  above  all  people  on  the  earth,  as  to  out- 
^'  ward  favours,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical,^^  By 
denying  that  they  were  chosen,  in  a  body,  to  eternal 
life,  the  Dr.  shews  that  he  distinguishes  them  from  the 
invisible  church  ;  but  by  saying  that  God  had  chosen 
them  to  be  a  special  people,  to  have  his  worship  among 
them,  and  to  enjoy  great  outward  favours,  both  civil 

(c)  Ps.  cxi.  1.  i^d)  Deut.  iv.  ST, 


(     93     ) 

and  ECCLESIASTICAL,  he  shews  that  they  are  the  visible 
church. 

I  proceed  to  give  some  instances  in  which  the  words 
^'n'D  and  ixx'KtiGio.  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX, 
to  point  out  the  church.  On  the  account  which  Joshua 
gives  of  his  reading  the  law  of  Moses  to  the  church, 
Dr.  Gill  comments  as  follows,  viz.  "  There  was  not  a 
^'  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded  which  Joshua  read 
'^  not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  [who  were 
^^  on  this  occasion  called  together,  and  not  before  the 
^'  men  only,  but]  with  the  women  and  the  little  ones,'' 
[who  all  had  a  concern  in  the  things  that  were  read  to 
them.](6;)  A  church  of  men,  women,  and  little  ones,  sounds 
very  much  like  Pedobaptism.  In  another  instance,  he 
speaks  still  stronger  in  a  similar  strain.  (/) 

In  David's  address  to  Goliah,  he  says,  "  And  all  this 
'^  assembly  shall  know  that  the  Lord  saveth  not  with  the 
'^  sword  and  spear."  Dr.  Gill  says  that  the  word  assejn- 
bly  means,  "  The  congregation  of  Israel,  and  church  of 
"  the  living  God,  great  part  of  which  was  now  gathered 
^•'  together,  and  were  spectators  of  this  wonderful 
''  event."(^) 

David  says,  "  I  will  give  thee  thanks  in  the  great 
church  ;  I  will  praise  thee  among  much  people."  Dr. 
Gill  explains  this  to  mean,  "  the  church  and  people  of 
*'  Godj^^  "  the  people  of  God  meeting  together  for 
^'  solemn  worship. "(A) 

David  again  says,  '^  let  them  exalt  him  also  in  the 
church  of  the  people."    Gill  says, — "  Of  the  people  of 

{e)  Josh.  viii.  35  (/)  Gill  on  Joel  ii.  16. 

Ig)  1  Sam.  xvii.  1.  7,  (/;)  Ps.  xxxv.  18. 


(       »4     ) 

*^  God,  who  are  gathered  out  of  the  world,  into  a  church" 
'^  state,  and  who  gather  themselves  together  to  attend  the 
^^  worship  and  service  of  God  in  some  one  place. "(/) 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  tax  your  patience  so  far  as  to 
quote  one  fourth  of  the  instances  in  which  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Septuagint  apply  JT\T>  and  ixx-Krioia.  to  the  Jews, 
as  the  visible  church  of  God.  Out  of  the  comparatively 
small  number  of  examples  which  were  selected  for  this 
point,  from  the  Old  Testament,  I  shall,  at  present,  pass 
over  twenty- two  which  are  now  before  me.(y) 

MR.  CAMPBELL'S 

NEW  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 
REVIEWED, 

IN  CONNEXION  WITH  THE  POINT  NOW  IN  HAND. 

In  the  New  Testament,  ecdesia  occurs  one  hundred  and  four- 
teen times;  in  more  than  one  hundred  of  which  it  confessedly 
means  the  visible  church.  I  do  not  know  that  my  Opponent  will 
confess  this,  but  every  other  sort  of  Baptist  will.  My  reason 
for  excepting  him  is,  that  he  has  such  an  aversion  to  the  word 
church,  (a  word  inestimably  precious  to  the  Christian,)  that  he 
appears  determined  to  banish  it  from  his  vocabulary.  He  has 
published  an  English  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
which,  (strange  to  tell!)  neither  the  word  church  nor  the  word 
baptism  is  found  once.  By  its  title  page,  it  professes  to  be 
"  The  New  Testament,  translated  from  the  original  Greek,  by 
"  George  Campbell,  James  Macknight,  and  Philip  Dod- 
**  BRIDGE,  Doctors  of  the  Church  of  Scotland."  In  the  Preface 
and  the  list  of  errata,  he  speaks  of  a  "London  edition  of  this 
translation,"  which  "departed  io  some  instances  from  the  origi- 

(i)  Ps.  cvii.  32. 

0)  1  Kgs.  viii.  14.  2  Chr.  i.  3.  5.  vi.  S.  (comp.  2.)  vi.  12.  13.  xxix.  23. 
28.  31.  32.  XXX.  2.  15.  17.  25.  24.  Ezr.  x,  8.^  Neh.  viii.  2.  (comp.  3—8.) 
Ps.  xxii.  22.  xl.  9.  Ixxxix.  5.  cxlix.  1.  Lam.  1.  10. 


(     95     ) 

nal  works,"  of  Campbell,  Macknight,  and  Doddridge.  Such  of 
these  alterations  as  affected  *'  the  styW^  onlj>  he  professes  to 
have  •'•retained:*'  but  '*some  of  these  alterations  affected  the 
sense  j"  these  he  professes  to  have  *'  brought  back  to  the  original 
works"  of  Campbell,  Mackniglit,  and  Doddridge.  In  this  trans- 
lation, then,  we  are  to  look  for  the  meaning  of  a  certain  set  of 
men,  clothed  in  another  man's  style.  When  the  Ettric  Shepherd 
first  saw  Duncan  Campbell,  the  little  stranger,  though  only  seven 
years  old,  wore  a  coat  originally  made  for  a  man.  If  this  new 
style  should  give  George  Campbell  and  his  companions  as 
grotesque  an  appearance,  my  Opponent  can  account  for  it,  upon 
the  ground  that  they  are  just  escaped  from  prison,  through  his 
benevolent  interposition.  Here  a  writer  in  the  Western  Lumi- 
nary speaks  as  follows  ;  viz.  ''  Mr.  Campbell,  on  this  part  of  his 
*'  subject,  says  something  about  the  works  of  Campbell,  Dod- 
*'  drid-e,  and  Macknight  having  been  '  imprisoned;'  and  seems 
**  to  take  credit  to  himself  for  having  brought  them  out  to  pub- 
**  lie  gaze;  and  considers  his  own  precious  existence*  necessary 
*'  to  prevent  them  from  being  again  locked  up."(/t)  How  envi- 
able is  the  lot  of  my  Opponent!  in  being  the  honoured  instru- 
ment of  preserving  these  eminent  scholars  from  rotting  in  a 
dungeon.  His  agency  in  this  business  proves  the  rapid  advance 
of  the  Western  Country  in  the  march  of  mind*  Let  posterity 
know,  that,  but  for  the  labours  of  a  certain  inhabitant  of  Buffaloe 
Creek,  the  works  of  three  of  the  most  celebrated  Doctors  of 
Europe  would  soon  have  sunk  into  oblivion. 

As  his  alterations  of  his  originals  are  far  more  numerous  than 
one  would  expect  from  the  title  page,  he  tells  us,  in  the  close  of 
his  Appendix,  that  these  emendations  "  are  preferred  merely 
*'  because  of  their  being  more  intelligible  to  common  readers, 
<' whose  edification  we  have  supremely  in  view."  For  these 
alterations  he  has  made  ample  amends  to  the  admirers  of  his 
three  worthies,  by  stuffing  their  jugulated  words  into  an  Appen- 
dix, with  such  novel  and  convenient  references,  that  they  are 

{k)  Western  Lum.  for  Jan.  3, 1827. 


(     96     ) 

almost  as  easily  found  as  a  needle  in  a  hay-stack.  Speaking  of 
this  in  his  preface,  he  says,  "  All  that  we  can  be  praised  or 
**  blamed  for  is  this  one  circumstance,  that  we  have  given  the 
"  most  conspicuous  place,  to  that  version  which  appeared  to 
*'  deserve  it."  That  is,  when  the  words  of  Campbell,  Mac- 
knight,  and  Doddridge  appear  to  my  Opponent  the  most  deserv- 
ing, he  gives  them  in  the  text,  and  places  others  in  the  Appendix : 
but  when  the  words  of  these  three  men  appear  to  my  Opponent 
less  deserving,  he  packs  them  off  to  the  Appendix,  and  substi- 
tutes others  in  the  translation,  whose  names  are  not  mentioned 
in  the  title  page.  Thus  every  word  of  this  version  may  be  con- 
sidered as  having  passed  through  the  crucible  of  my  Opponent's 
judgment.  And  who  so  well  calculated  to  judge  among  the 
jarring  translations  of  jarring  sects,  as  that  man  who  possesses 
the  greatest  literary  and  theological  attainments,  and  is,  at  the 
same  time,  perfectly  divested  of  all  sectarian  feelings  or  preju- 
dices, as  is  evident  from  the  whole  career  of  my  Opponent,  from 
Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington.  Hear  the  words  of  his  Preface 
on  this  subject.  "  If  the  mere  publication  of  a  version  of  the 
*'  inspired  writings  requires,  as  we  believe  it  does,  the  publisher 
**  to  have  no  sectarian  object  in  view,  we  are  happy  in  being 
'*  able  to  appeal  to  our  whole  course  of  public  addresses,  and  to 
''  all  that  we  have  written  on  religious  subjects,  to  shew  that  we 
**  have  no  such  object  in  view!!!"  Perhaps  so  great  a  portion 
of  charity,  anti-sectarian  liberality,  and  the  milk  of  human  kind- 
ness, can  hardly  be  found  in  the  island  of  Great  Britain,  as  my 
Opponent  knows  to  exist  in  one  little  privileged  spot  on  the 
banks  of  Buffaloe.  It  is  reasonable,  therefore,  that  he  should 
claim  to  his  work  superior  praise,  over  the  London  copy,  whose 
Editors  probably  spent  much  of  their  strength  in  sectarian  de- 
bates against  infant-sprinkling,  and  the  thirty-nine  articles,  and 
the  thirty-three  Chapters,  and  male  and  female  Missionaries, 
and  Bible  and  Benevolent  Societies,  and  the  observance  of 
family  prayer,  and  the  sabbath  day.  As  my  Opponent  never 
was  known  to  whisper  sectarian  charges  against  other  denomina- 
tions, for  holding  doctrines  or  ordinances  "injurious  to  the  well- 


(     97     ) 


■1 


being  of  society,  religious  or  political,"  he  must  be  indulged  in 
a  little  commendable  boasting,  such  as  the  following,  viz. 
"  Taking  every  thing  into  view,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying, 
"  that,  in  the  present  improved  state  of  the  English  language, 
*«  the  ideas  communicated  by  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  of 
*'  Jesus  Christ,  are  incomparably  better  expressed  in  this,  than 
**  in  any  volume  ever  presented  in  our  mother  tongue."(/) 
Whenever,  therefore,  my  Opponent's  Translation  of  the  New 
Testament  is  mentioned  in  this  discussion,  remember,  that, 
*'  taking  every  thing  into  view,"  particularly  his  own  rare  quali- 
fications for  such  a  work,  it  is  '*  incomparably"  the  best  in  the 
language. 

To  set  forth  his  unparallelled  qualifications  still  more  fully, 
he  says,  in  his  Preface,  "The  whole  scope,  design,  and  drift  of 
**  our  labours  is  to  see  Christians  intelligent,  united  and  happy." 
With  regard  to  uniting  Christians,  his  labours,  in  one  way  or 
another,  appear  to  succeed  in  a  small  degree.  The  Western 
Luminary, (w)  informs  us  that  my  Opponent  has  made  an  inge- 
nious effort  to  prove  that  his  two  bosom  friends,  a  Unitarian,* 
and  Dr.  James  Fishback,  are  united  in  sentiment,  in  relation  to 
our  Saviour's  person,  although  the  former  openly  rejects  the 
doctrine  of  his  supreme  and  eternal  Deity,  and  the  latter  would 
be  thought  to  receive  this  doctrine.  Moreover,  they  are  now 
very  cordially  united  in  their  opposition  to  creeds  and  confes- 
sions, those  stubborn  things  which  have  been  so  much  in  the  way 
of  Unitarians,  from  the  Council  of  Nice  to  the  present  day.  If 
Mr.  Greatrake  and  the  Orthodox  Pastors  and  Editors,  Associa- 
tions and  Conventions  of  the  Baptist  denomination  have  not 
followed  the  amiable  example  of  unity  which  these  brethren  have 
set  them,  it  is  their  own  fault.  Mr.  Greatrake  will  not  admit 
that  my  Opponent  is  for  peace  abroad  or  unity  at  home.  Writing 
to  the  Western  Baptist  Churches  concerning  my  Opponent,  he 
says,  "  Having  had  you  for  two  or  three  years  spectators  of  his 


(/)  Introduction  to  Appendix.  (m)  For  Jan.  3,  1827. 

wri 
rvva 

N 


♦  The  writer,  through  mistake,  gave  a  wrong  name  to  the  Unitarian, 
as  he  afterwards  informed  rae. 


•ai 


(     98     ) 

**  own  personal  combats,  or  familiarized  jour  minds  to  a  view 
*'  of  his  own  fightings,  you  will  find,  perhaps  too  late,  that  the 
**  object  contemplated  by  Mr.  C.  was  to  prepare  you  fordissen- 
*'  tions  and  fightings  among  yourselves  ;  to  the  end  that  he 
*'  might  share  the  spoils  by  making  you  a  divided  people."(n) 
As  my  Opponent  refers  to  his  life  for  his  antisectarian  charac- 
ter, 80  Mr.  Greatrake  says  to  the  churches,  "  Yes,  brethren, 
search,  search  his  whole  life,  as  far  as  possible."  He  then  tells 
them  that  this  scrutiny  will  irrefragably  prove  "  that  you  [Bapr 
**  tists,]as  a  denomination,  have  been  made  the  citadel  ofhissafe- 
"  ty,  while  throwing  the  shafts  of  his  hostility  at  other  denominar 
*'  tions;  particularly  at  that  one  with  which  you  most  assuredly 
**  stand  in  the  greatest  degree  of  fellowship.  The  question 
**  then  is,  whether  Mr.  C.  represents  your  feelings  towards 
"  the  Presbyterian  and  other  Pedobaptist  churches,  against 
"  whom  he  '  breathes  out  threatenings  and  slaughter  ?'  If  he 
*'  does,  let  us  know  what  cause  they  have  given  for  this  inter- 
*'  minable  rage.  But  I  need  not  put  this  sort  of  question  to  you, 
**  being  fully  persuaded  that  your  greatest  partiality  is  towards 
*'  that  very  church  which  Mr.  C.  appears  to  hate  with  the  most 
*'  deadly  hatred."(o)  This  is  a  righteous  sentence  pronounced 
in  the  name  of  the  Western  Baptist  Churches,  by  one  of  their 
most  respectable  and  worthy  ministers,  in  exculpation  of  the 
much  injured,  and  grossly  insulted  Pedobaptists  of  this  country. 
It  correctly  represents  my  would-be  antisectarian  Opponent,  as 
breathing  threatenings  and  slaughter^  and  throwing  the  shafts  of 
his  hostility  with  interminable  rage,  and  the  most  deadly  hatred, 
at  other  denominations,  particularly  our  own;  and  as  doing  this, 
not  to  oppose  error,  (for  he  is  rotten  to  the  core,)  but  all  this 
zeal  against  others  is,  that  he  may  prepare  the  Baptists  for  dis- 
sentions  and  fightings  among  themselves,  that  he  may  share  the 
spoils  of  their  divisions.  He  must  surely  be  rarely  qualified  for 
writing  an  incomparable  translation  of  the  New  Testament! 
One  prominent  feature  of  tliis  anomalous  production  is,  that 

(n)  Unitarian  Baptist  of  the  Robinson  School  Exposed,  p.  88. 
{o)        Do.  p.  87. 


0 


{     99     ) 

it  professes  to  reject  every  adopted  or  anglicised  word.  Dr. 
George  Campbell's  labours  in  favour  of  immersion  give  him  some 
aid  in  this  particular.  Complaining  of  our  Translators,  the  Dr. 
says,  '»some  words  they  have  transferred  from  the  original  into 
their  language,  others  they  have  translated."  He  wishes  that 
they  had  not  transcribed  the  word  baptism,  but  given  it  a  dipping 
translation.  He  considers  baptism,  even  now,  "  a  foreign  name. 
**  For  this  reason,"  says  he,  "  1  should  think  the  word  immer- 
*'  sion  (which,  though  of  Latin  origin,  is  an  English  noun,  regu- 
"  larly  formed  from  the  verb  to  immerse,)  a  better  English  name 
'*  than  baptism,  were  we  now  at  liberty  to  make  a  choice. "(/)) 
When  great  men  sicken  into  a  prurient  longing  to  carry  some 
wrong  point,  what  weak  arguments  they  will  sometimes  use  I 
Now  I  would  inquire  of  the  literary  world,  if  it  be  not  as  true, 
that  BAPTISM,  though  of  Greek  origin,  is  an  English  noun, 
regularly  formed  from  the  verb  to  baptize,  as  that  immersion, 
•'  though  of  Latin  origin,  is  an  English  noun,  regularly  formed 
from  the  verb  to  immerse?''^  Both  these  words  were  originally 
foreign,  and  both  are  now  naturalized  ;  and  if  there  be  any  dif- 
ference, it  is  in  favour  of  baptism,  because  this,  being  more 
generally  known  and  understood,  is  more  completely  domesti- 
cated. Besides,  the  connexion  of  the  term,  in  the  scriptures, 
shews  that  immersion  would  be  a  perversion,  instead  of  a  trans- 
lation, of  the  Original.  It  was  evidently  this  consideration  which 
sometimes  made  Dr.  Macknight  follow  our  Bible  in  transcribing. 
He  does  not  say  *'  All  were  immersed  into  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea,"  as  my  Opponent's  incomparable  has  said  for 
him;  but  he  says  "  all  were  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea."  When  a  man's  zeal  against  the  adoption  of  Greek 
words,  leads  him  not  only  to  publish  Dr.  Campbell's  weak  argu- 
ment, but  to  invent  a  fact  for  Paul,  and  forge  a  translation  for 
Macknight,  I  am  ready  to  say  in  reference  to  a  reproof  once 
given  to  an  incompetent  imitator  of  Pindar,  "  Dr.  Campbell 
was  bold,  but  thou  art  impudent" 

i^fi)  See  Appendix  to  the  incomparable.  No,  4. 


(     100     ) 

Scores  of  alterations,  where  this  word  is  concerned,  are  con- 
fessed in  the  Appendix;  and  after  he  was  taxed  with  the  fault 
he  shews  that  thej  were  promised  in  the  Prospectus,  which, 
however,  is  not  published  with  the  work,  and  is  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  promise  contained  in  the  title-page.  His  prospectus 
reads  as  follows,  viz.  "There  is  also  one  improvement  of  con- 
*'  siderable  importance  which  ought  to  be  made  in  this  work, 
♦*  and  to  which  we  shall  attend.  Sundry  terms  are  not  trans- 
**  lated  into  English,  but  adopted  into  those  translations  from 
**  long  usage.  Those  terms  are  occasionally  translated  into 
*'  English  by  Campbell  and  Macknightj  but  not  always.  We 
'*  shall  uniformly  give  them  the  meaning  which  they  have  affixed 
**  to  them,  wherever  they  occur,  and  thus  make  this  a  pure 
'*  English  New  Testament,  not  mingled  with  Greek  words, 
"  either  adopted  or  anglicised  ."(^f)  Here  is  a  promise  that  he 
will  make  his  translation  such  pure  English,  that  it  shall  not 
contain  any  adopted  words,  such  as  Martyr,  Archangel,  Myriad^ 
Mystery,  Schism,  Blasphemy,  Denarius,  Eurodydon,  Tartarus, 
Abyss,  Hades.  Some  of  these  words,  such  as  myriad,  denarius, 
tartarus,  abyss,  and  hades,  are  translated  and  not  adopted  in  our 
bible:  but  his  translation  is  greatly  to  excel  ours  in  this  respect, 
and  be  much  purer  English.  He  promises  to  adopt  none,  but  trans- 
late all.  After  this,  would  you  expect  to  hear  me  say  that  he  had 
actually  adopted  the  whole  of  them,  even  those  which  our  bible 
translates?     Yet  such  is  the  fact! 

In  one  case,  he  copies  Doddridge,  concerning  "  the  martyrs  of 
Jesus,"(r)  though  in  another  he  alters  Doddridge's  martyr  into 
witness.[s)  Angel  is  a  Greek  word  anglicised;  he  therefore  re- 
jects it  utterly,  and  always  uses  the  word  Messenger  for  it. 
Archangel  also  is  a  Greek  word  transcribed,  and  might  just  as 
properly  be  rendered  Prime-messenger :  yet  this  word  he  uni- 
formly adopts.  (/)     Myriad  is   a   Greek   word    anglicised,  and 


iq)  See  it  quoted  in  West.  Luminary  for  Jan.  3,  1827. 
(r)  Rev.  xvii.  6.  («)  Rev.  ii.  13, 

( t)  In  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  Jude  ix.  the  only  places  in  which  it  occurs  in  the 
Is.  1 . 


(     101     )  f 

when  used  in  connexion  with  angels,  is  rendered  by  Macknight 
**  ten  thousands  of  angels. "(w)  My  Opponent's  incomparable 
alters  this  into  ^'myriads  of  messengers."  How  wonderfully 
this  elucidates  the  subjectl  But  in  the  Appendix  he  tells  us 
that  such  improvements  are  made,  that  the  scriptures  may  be 
*'  more  intelligible  to  common  readers,  whose  edification,"  says 
he,  ''we  have  supremely  in  view."  Some  common  readers, 
however,  are  so  stupid  that  they  would  think  this  improvement 
worth  very  little  more  than  a  pair  of  leather  spectacles.  Besides 
copying  Doddridge  in  transferring  the  word  mysiery,[v)  and 
Macknight  in  transferring  the  word  schism^iw)  he  holds  fast  to 
this  adopted  word  twice,  even  where  Macknight  translates  it^(a;) 
in  one  of  which  instances  he  justifies  himself  by  the  authority  of 
Dr.  George  Campbell,  who  first  taught  him  to  condemn  such 
transcriptions,  (y)  The  Dr.  and  \i\^  incomparable  disciple  some- 
times translate  blasphemy  and  blaspheme^  though  poorly  enough ; 
yet  at  other  times  both  the  noun  and  the  verb  are  adopted  by 
them.(z)  As  for  denarius^  I  believe  they  uniformly  transfer 
it5(a)  although  our  American  dime  is  a  coin  of  the  same  value, 
and  would,  (in  our  country  at  least,)  afford  a  good  translation. 
He  has  adopted  Euroclydon^ip)  although  he  knows  that  Zcuanfcr 
is  a  translation  familiar  to  the  commercial  world.  To  be  more 
intelligible  to  common  readers,  he  has  adopted  ^ar^«rM5,(c)  in- 
stead of  translating  it  hell  as  our  bible  does.  In  one  instance 
now  before  me,  {d)  he  follows  Dr.  Campbell  in  transferring  the 
word  abyss,  where  our  bible  translates  it  the  deep,  notwithstand- 
ing their  censures  against  it  for  transferring  instead  of  trans- 
lating. In  other  cases  he  copies  Doddridge's  abyss;{e)  besides 
which  he  translates  it  the  deep  with  Macknight,^'/)  and  the  bot- 
tomless pit,  with  Doddridge. («•)  In  relation  to  another  word  of 
similar  import,  my  Opponent  says,   "  There  being  no  one  word 

(u)  Hebr.  xii.  22.  {v)  Rev.  xvii.  5.  (w)  1  Cor.  xii.  25. 

(x)  1  Cor.  xi.  18.  i.  10.      (y)  1  Cor.  i.  10.  and  Appendix,  No.  67. 

[z)  In  Matl.  xxvi.  65,  both  occur. 

(a)  I  have  examined  them  in  Matt,  xviii.  28.  xx.  2.  9.  10.  13.  xxii.  IP. 

{b)  Acts  xxvii.  14.         (c)  1  Pet.  ii.  4.         {d)  Luke  viii.  31.  • 

(e)  Rev.  xi.  7,  xx.  3.     (/)  Rom.  x.  7.  {g)  Rev.  ix.  11.  xvii.  18.  xx.  1. 


(     102     ) 

in  our  language  which  corresponds  to  the  term  hades,  he  [Df. 
George  Campbell]  is  obliged  to  retain  and  explain  it."  He  at 
the  same  time  says,  '•  We  [Mr.  Alexander  Campbell]  have  uni- 
formly followed  his  method  in  the  books  which  he  did  not  trans- 
late."(A)  That  is,  the  word  hades  is  never  translated,  but  always 
retained  in  his  New  Testament.  This  he  does  in  despite  of  Mac- 
knight's  grave,(i)  and  Doddridge's  hell,{j)  and  his  unseen 
world[k)  yet  in  this  last  translation  my  Opponent  actually  copies 
Doddridge  in  three  places, (/)  notwithstanding  his  promise  uni- 
formly to  retain  hades  after  Dr.  Campbell's  example.  From  these 
instances  we  may  conclude  that  when  he  promises  to  adopt,  he 
will  be  sure  to  translate,  and  when  he  abuses  our  Translators 
for  adopting,  he  means  to  adopt  twice  as  much  as  they  have 
done. 

As  my  Opponent  promised  always  to  translate^  so  his  incom- 
parable  makes  extraordinary  pretensions  to  uniformity  in  its 
translations.  His  three  guides  have  rendered  the  same  word 
sometimes  one  way  and  sometimes  another.  This  he  seems 
determined  to  avoid  as  an  error.  He  says  "  Wherever  the 
"  word  church  is  found  in  the  common  version,  congregation 
'*  will  be  found  in  this.  We  shall  let  Drs.  Campbell  and 
**  Doddridge  defentl  the  preference.  For  although  they  have 
"  not  always  so  rendered  it,  they  give  the  best  of  reasons  why  it 
"  should  be  always  so  translated. "(w)  Here  the  arguments 
of  Doddridge  and  Campbell  are  given  for  a  uniformity  which 
they  did  not  approve  nor  practise.  But  on  this  subject  my  Op- 
ponent is  a  professed  disciple  of  Home  Tooke,  who  was  a  great 
enemy  to  allowing  a  diversity  of  significations  to  the  same  word. 
After  informing  you  that  Dr.  Johnson  assigned  forty-six  mean- 
ings to  an  English  monosyllable,  he  says,  "  But  the  celebrated 
'•  Home  Tooke  demonstrates  that  it  has  but  one  meaning,  and 
*'  that  all  the  pretended  meanings  of  Dr.  S.  Johnson  are  resolvable 
"  into  it."(»)     He  then  goes   on  to   apply  the  remark  to  the 

(/;)  Appendix  No  21.  (i)  1  Cor.  xv.  55.  (J)  Rev.  vi,  8. 

(X-)  licv.  XX.  13.  14.  (/)  Acth  ii.  27.  31.  Rev.  i.  18, 

(7«)  Appendix  No.  10. 

(«>  Spurious  Debate  with  W.  L.  M.  p.  313.  Note. 


(     103     ) 

Greek  prepositions  in  opposition  to  Parkhurst,  who  allowed 
sixteen  meanings  to  one,  and  eighteen  to  another.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  Home  Tooke,  in  ascertaining  his  one  meaning 
of  a  word,  is  governed  bj  its  etymology.  Here  also  my  Oppo- 
nent follows  him;  and  he  gives  this  as  a  reason  for  banishing 
the  word  church  from  his  New  Testament.  He  says,  "The 
*'  term  church  or  hirk^  i^  an  abbreviation  of  the  word  xv^iov 
*«  oixo^  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  does  not  translate  the  term 
<'  fxxx>j(yta,"  [a  calling  out.](o)  Here  the  mere  fact  of  two  words 
being  differently  derived,  is  given  as  a  reason  why  they  cannot 
have  the  same  signification,  and  why  one  of  them  cannot  pro- 
perly translate  the  other.  If  church  cannot  render  ecclesia, 
merely  because  it  is  etymologically  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and 
not  a  calling  out,  then  surely  his  favourite  congregation  cannot 
render  it,  for  this  is,  by  derivation,  a  gathering  together,  and 
not  a  calling  out.  This  places  ecclesia  in  the  same  predicament 
in  which  he  says  that  hades  is,  without  a  corresponding  word  in 
our  language.  To  be  consistent,  then,  he  should  either  tran- 
scribe it,  or  form  some  new  word,  like  evocation,  of  a  similar 
derivation.  So  completely  has  my  Opponent  entangled  himself 
by  this  position,  that  if  it  can  be  maintained,  then  he  has  de- 
stroyed his  whole  new  version.  If  the  mere  want  of  coincidence 
in  etymology  is  sufficient  to  disqualify  church  from  rendering 
ecclesia^  then  his  incomparable  has  not  translated  one  verse  of  the 
New  Testament  correctly.  If  he  were  tried  by  his  own  test,  he 
would  fall  infinitely  below  our  own  translators.  This  he  knows 
very  well,  and,  therefore,  in  direct  defiance  of  his  own  princi- 
ples, he  condemns  them  for  paying  too  much  attention  to  the 
literal  and  etymological  meaning  of  words.  He  says,  "The 
**  kings  translators  have  frequentljr  erred  in  attempting  to  be, 
*'  what  some  would  call  literally  correct.  They  have  not  given 
*'  the  meaning  in  some  passages  where  they  have  given  a  literal 
<'  translation."  More  directly  still  to  the  point,  he  says,  "  that 
^^  what  a  classical  scholar,  or  a  critical  etymologist  [such  as 

(o)  Appendix  No,  10, 


(     104     ) 

•♦  Home  Tooke  or  his  disciple]  might  approve,  as  a  literal 
*•  version  of  some  passages,  is  by  no  means  the  meaning  of  the 
*♦  writer."  These  sentiments,  he  informs  us,  are  the  fruit  of 
his  "better  acquaintance  with  the  idiomatic  style  of  the  Apostolic 
•*  writings,  and  of  the  Septuagint  Greek;"  while  he  stigmatizes 
as  "  smatterers  in  the  original  Greek,"(/))  those  who  lean  to  the 
closer  and  stricter  rendering  of  our  Translators.  He  would 
have  come  nearer  the  truth  if  he  had  told  you  that  instead  of 
obtaining  these  sentiments  from  his  own  better  acquaintance 
with  the  Greek  Scriptures,  he  took  them,  second-handed,  from 
Dr.  George  Campbell,  who  published  them,  as  an  apology  for  his 
extremely  loose  version  of  the  four  Gospels,  which  might  more 
correctly  be  called  a  paraphrase  than  a  translation.  In  avoiding 
the  literal  extreme  of  Arias  Montanus,  he  went  so  com- 
pletely into  the  liberal  extreme,  that  he  saw  himself  in  danger 
of  being  accused  of  licentiousness.  In  relation  to  my  Opponent's 
views  of  the  words  ecclesia  and  church,  on  account  of  their  want 
of  etymological  coincidence,  permit  me  to  give  you  a  little  more 
from  Dr.  Campbell.  In  shewing  how  unsafe  it  sometimes  is  to 
trust  to  the  etymology  of  a  word  for  its  meaning,  he  says, 
•>  There  are  many  cases  wherein,  though  its  descent  may  be 
**  clearly  traced,  we  should  err  egregiously,  if  we  were  to  fix 
**  its  meaning  from  that  of  the  primitive  or  root."  "  Thus  the 
"  three  words  xw/tcxo?  in  Greek,  paganus  in  Latin,  and  villain 
'*  in  English,  though  evidently  so  conformable  in  etymology,  that 
**  they  ought  all  to  denote  the  same  thing,  namely  villager;  have, 
♦»  for  many  ages,  both  lost  that  signification,  and  acquired  others 
M  in  which  they  do  not  in  the  least  resemble  one  another.  If 
*♦  the  use  in  these  languages  should  ever  come  to  be  very  little 
*'  known,  and  the  history  of  the  nations  nearly  lost,  we  may 
*'  form  a  guess  at  the  absurdities  in  explaining  those  terms,  into 
"  which  men  would  be  misled  by  etymology ."(^r)  Doubtless  my 
Opponent  will  agree  to  all  this  when  Dr.  Campbell  says  it,  just 
^s  he  agrees  to  the  very  opposite  when  Home  Tooke  says  it. 

(fi)  Preface,  p.  7. 

(y)  Dr.  Campbell's  fourth  Preliminary  Dissertation.  Sections  16.  17. 


(     105     ) 

When  he  sells  himself  to  two  masters,  he  is  for  yielding  implicit 
obedience  to  both,  even  when  thej  are  diametrically  opposed  to 
each  other,  and  lead  him  into  palpable  contradictions  and  ab- 
surdities. 

The  absurdity  of  his  preferring  congregation  to  church,  as  a 
rendering  of  ecclesia,  and  then  uniformly  adhering  to  that  render- 
ing, will  soon  be  evident.  The  word  ecclesia  is  used  to  denote 
the  place  of  worship  as  well  as  the  worshipping  assembly.  The 
word  church  has  the  same  latitude  of  signification:  but  congre- 
gation has  not.  Paul  says,  "When  ye  come  together  in  the 
ecclesia,  I  hear  that  there  be  divisions  among  you."(7')  Our 
Bible  says,  *'when  ye  come  together  in  the  church,^^  Of  this 
Dr.  Gill  approves,  and  says  that  the  word  means  "the/j/ace 
where  the  church  met  together  to  perform  divine  service,"  which 
exposition  he  proves  by  the  context.  Accordingly  Dr.  Mac- 
knight  says,  "  when  ye  come  together  in  the  churchP  As  usual, 
my  Opponent  alters  the  word  church,  and  says,  "  When  ye 
come  together  in  the  congregation.^^ 

In  another  instance,  according  to  Doddridge,  *' The  Saddu« 
cees  say,  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither  angel  nor  spirit."(s) 
My  Opponent's  incomparable  reads,  **  There  is  no  resurrection, 
neither  [good  nor  evil]  messenger,^^  &c.  What  Doddridge  calls 
angel  in  the  next  verse,  my  Opponent  calls  ''  heavenly  messen- 
ger,''^ without  enclosing  the  word  heavenly  in  brackets,  as  he 
did  the  words  "  good  and  evil"  in  the  former  verse.  This  way 
of  translating  leaves  the  common  reader,  (whose  benefit  my 
Opponent  had  supremely  in  view,)  perfectly  at  a  loss  to  know 
what  is  in  Doddridge,  what  is  in  the  Original,  and  what  the 
new  translator  would  be  at. 

Another  instance  of  the  astonishing  uniformity  of  my  Oppo- 
nent's New  Testament.  There  are  four  texts  in  which  Dod- 
dridge, with  some  claims  to  uniformity,  transfers  the  word 
mystery,  [t)     In  the  first  of  these  my  Opponent  agrees  with  him 

(r)  1  Cor.  xi.  18.  (s)  Acts  xxiii.  8. 

(0  Rev.  xvii.  5.  7.  (com.  22)  x.  7.  i.  20. 

o 


(     106     ) 

in  transferring.    In  the  second  and  third,  he  translates  it  secreL 
In  the  fourth  he  renders  it  hidden-meaning. 

Again;  there  are  six  texts  in  which  Doddridge  uniformly 
transcribes  the  words  blaspheme,  blasphemer,  blasphemy,  blas- 
phemously.{u)  Only  four  of  these  are  in  those  books  of  which 
he  professes  to  give  Doddridge's  translation.  In  the  first  of 
these,  my  Opponent  transcribes  blasphemers  as  Doddridge  does. 
In  the  second  he  translates  detractions,  in  the  third,  abusive 
things,  in  the  fourth  reviled,  in  the  fifth  slander,  and  in  the  sixth 
defamation.  All  this  is  for  the  sake  of  an  extraordinary  and 
scrupulous  uniformity! 

Once  more.  The  word  anastasis  occurs  four  times  in  the 
compass  of  eight  verses.(v)  In  the  first  of  these  instances,  my 
Opponent's  incomparable  uniformity  renders  itfuture  life,  in  the 
second  resurrection,  in  the  third  that  state,  and  in  the  fourth 
revival,  where  Dr.  Campbell  has  it  quickening.  Now  in  all  these 
places,  our  translation,  which  is  so  much  censured  for  its  want  of 
uniformity,  uses  the  word  resurrection,  as  Doddridge  does. 
With  this  uniform  rendering  agree  the  Latin  translations  of 
Jerome,  Castalio,  Beza,  and  that  of  Junius  and  Tremellius:  as 
do  also  the  German,  Italian,  and  French,  of  Luther,  Diodati, 
and  De  Sacy,  with  a  variety  of  others  in  different  languages. 
Even  the  Unitarian  Improved  Version,  and  the  Universalist 
double- distilled  version  by  Mr.  Kneeland,  renders  the  word 
uniformly  resurrection  as  our  bible  does.  My  Opponent's  su- 
perfine is  the  only  one  which  professes  an  unparallelled  consis- 
tency, and  he  and  his  pattern,  whom  he  has  altered,  are  the 
only  ones  who  have  given  four  renderings  to  this  word,  in  a 
passage  of  eight  verses. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  my  Opponent  does  not  openly  offer 
to  the  public  a  new  version  of  his  own,  but  he  proposes  to  give 
us  the  works  of  Drs.  Campbell,  Macknight,  and  Doddridge.  In 
his  Appendix  he  says,  "  we  were  scrupulously  intent  on  giving 


(u)  Actsxix.  37.  Mk.  iii.  28.   Luke  xxii.  65.  Actsxviii,6,  Rev,  ii.  9, 
xiii.  6.  (y)  Mutt.  xxii.  23.  28.  30.  31. 


(     107     ) 

^*  every  word  of  the  works  proposed,  "(z^)     It  is  true  that  in 
making  this  declaration,  he  may  have  had  his  eye  upon  the  notes, 
in  which,  however,  he  has  not  given  every  word  of  the  works 
proposed,  as  may  be  seeii  in  the  alteration  last  mentioned,  and 
others  without  number.    But  if  he  had  scrupulously  given  every 
word  of  theirs  in  the  notes,  would  that  justify  him  in  imposing 
the  work  upon  the  community,  as  the  "  New  Testament  trans- 
♦*  lated  from  the  original  Greek,  by  George  Campbell,  James 
*'  Macknight,  and  Philip  Doddridge,  Doctors  of  the  Church  of 
**  Scotland?"     He  ought  rather  to  have  called  it,  the  translation 
of  one  man,  accompanied  with  the  various   readings  of  three 
others:  or,  at  least,  he  should  have  given  it  such  an  honest  title 
as  that  of  the  Unitarian  translation  ;  "  The  New  Testament,  in 
"  an  Improved  Version,  upon  the   basis  of  Archbishop  New- 
"  come's  new  translation,  with  a  corrected  text,  and  notes  critical 
"  and  explanatory."     The  authors  of  this  work  did  not  dare  to 
offer  it  to  the  British  public,  as  <•  the  New  Testament  translated 
"  by  Newcome,  a  Primate  of  the  Church  of  England,"  but  only 
a  new  version    "upon  the  basis    of  Archbishop    Newcome's." 
What  then  would  they  think  of  a  Unitarian  Baptist,  who  would 
publish  a  translation,  purporting  to  be  the  work  of  three  "  Doc- 
tors of  the  Church  of  Scotland,"  and  yet  containing  more  varia- 
tions from  these  Doctors,  by  three  or  four,  if  not  ten  times,  than 
the  Improved  Version  has  alterations  of  Newcome's  translation? 
Mr.  Kneeland's  New  Testament  is  as  good  a  copy  of  either  Scar- 
lett or  the  Improved  Version,  as  my  Opponent's  is  of  the  three 
Doctors :  yet  he  had  not  the  audacity  to  palm  it  upon  the  public  as 
either  of  these  works,  but  was  satisfied  with  the  puerile  vanity 
of  being  the  author  of  a  new  version,  between  which  and  its 
models  there  was  no  important  difference. 

In  some  important  instances,  nly  Opponent  agrees  with  these 
corrupt  versions,  in  opposition  to  those  which  he  promised  to 
copy.  It  is  well  known  that  the  Unitarians  endeavour  to  fritter 
flown  the  interview  between  Paul  and  the  jailer  to  little  more 

(Ty)  p.  38, 


{     108     ) 

than  a  consultation  about  temporal  safety  from  civil  punishment 
by  the  Roman  government.  This  has  been  attempted  I  am  told,  by 
Dr.  Holley  in  Lexington.  With  a  view  to  this,  the  Unitarian 
Improved  Version  makes  the  jailer  say,  '^  Sirs,  what  must  I  do 
to  be  safe?^^  And  it  makes  Paul  and  Silas  answer,  '*  Believe  in 
"  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  safe  and  thine  house- 
"  hold."(ic)  To  the  word  s«/e,  they  append  a  note  informing 
us  that  Newcome  has  the  word  saved  in  accordance  with  our 
translation:  after  which  the  note  says  "Mr.  Wakefield  explains 
it,  to  avoid  punishment  for  what  has  befallen  the  prisoners  and 
the  prison.  *'  This,"  he  adds,  "is  beyond  all  doubt,  the  sense 
*«  of  the  passage;  though  Paul,  in  his  reply,  uses  the  words  in  a 
"  more  extensive  signification :  a  practice  common  in  these 
"  writings."  Kneeland  copies  the  translation  and  the  note 
without  giving  credit  for  either.  My  Opponent  translates,  **0 
"  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  that  I  may  be  safe  ?  And  they  said,  Be- 
"  lieve  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  safe,  and 
'<  thine  house."  As  there  is  nothing  about  this  passage  in  the 
margin,  and  as  there  is  no  note  referring  from  this  or  any  other 
part  of  the  chapter  to  the  Appendix,  any  reader,  who  has  not 
been  accustomed  to  catching  eels,  would  take  it  for  granted  that 
Doddridge  had  given  the  above  translation  in  accordance  with 
^he  Unitarian  and  Universalist  versions.  But  on  examining  the 
Appendix,  half  of  Doddridge's  translation  is  found  wedged  in 
between  notes  to  which  reference  is  made  from  the  preceding  and 
succeeding  chapters.  In  connexion  with  this  half-reading,  he  gives 
the  reason  why  he  had  thus  hidden  Doddridge,  and  '^given  the  most 
conspicuous  place  to  that  [Unitarian]  version,  which  appeared 
to  deserve  it."  This  reason  is  given  in  the  words  of  Wakefield 
the  Unitarian,  as  follows,  viz.  *'  The  jailer  meant  no  more  than, 
"  what  shall  I  do  to  be  safe  from  punishment?  for  what  had  be- 
*<  fallen  the  prisoners  and  the  prison  ?  This  is,  beyond  doubt 
"  the  sense  of  the  passage;  though  Paul,  in  his  reply,  uses  the 
"  words  in  a  more  extensive  signification;  a  practice  common  in 

(x)  Acts  xvi.  30.  31. 


\      (     109     ) 

*'  these  writings."  These  words  in  the  Appendix  are  preceded 
and  followed  by  the  name  of  Wakefield,  as  the  author  of  the 
translation  and  note.  Thus,  while  there  is  a  happy  agreement 
between  Doddridge  and  our  translation,  there  is  also  a  sweet 
harmony  between  the  Socinian  version  of  London,  the  Univer- 
salist  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Arian  Baptist  of  Buffaloe  Creek. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  exhortation  of  Paul  *'to  feed  the 
church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood,  "(y) 
is  shocking  to  the  feelings  of  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the 
supreme  deity  and  true  humanity  of  him  whose  blood  has  satis- 
fied divine  justice  for  the  sins  of  his  people.  It  even  wounds 
weak  Christians,  on  account  of  its  appearing  to  attribute  blood 
and  suffering  to  God  who  is  impassible.  For  this  reason  various 
transcribers  and  translators,  ancient  and  modern,  have  softened 
.  down  the  Apostle's  expression,  by  substituting,  some,  one  word, 
and,  some  another,  which  may  not  be  so.  shocking  to  their  feel- 
ings. Some  of  these  transcribers  and  translators  are  adduced 
by  the  Unitarian  Improved  Version,  to  prove  that  the  word 
Lord  is  a  better  reading  than  that  of  the  received  text.  Mr. 
Kneeland's  Universalist  Version  also  prefers  the  word  Lord; 
and  so  does  my  Opponent's  edition  of  Dr.  Doddridge's  transla- 
tion, without  one  marginal  note  or  reference  to  the  Appendix 
from  any  part  of  the  Chapter  to  shew  that  he  was  not  reporting 
the  Dr.  correctly.  On  this  account,  "A  Friend  to  Truth"  in 
"  The  Western  Luminary, "(js:)  in  noticing  this  alteration,  says 
that  my  Opponent  "  passes  over  it  silently."  This  mistake  was 
owing  to  the  violation  of  a  promise  made  by  my  Opponent  in  his 
Preface.  His  words  are  these,  viz.  "  instead  of  crowding  the 
"  margin  with  different  translations  and  critical  notes,  we  have 
'*  placed  them  in  an  Appendix  and  made  references  to  them  at 
*'  the  bottom  of  the  page."(a)  After  having  generally  dis- 
regarded this  engagement  until  he  gets  to  the  224th  page 
of  his  translation,  he  then  refers  to  a  note  in  the  Appendix, 
which  gives  notice  that  he  will  violate  this  promise  on  a  greater 

(y)  Acts  XX,  28.  (z)  For  Jan.  iii,  1827.  («)  p.  10. 


(     110     ) 

scale  "in  the  Bubsequcnt  books  of  the  New  Testament,  than  in 
the  preceding,"  and  assigns  as  a  reason  for  this  course,  that  so 
many  references  "at  the  bottom  of  the  page"  "would  rather 
have  disfigured  the  page."     I  confess  that  if  his  work  were 
bespangled  with  asterisks  and  other  marks  as  numerous  as  the 
instances  in  which  he  has  altered  his  three  great  men,  it  would 
give  his  page  some  resemblance  to  whortle  berries  and  milk : 
but  the  right  way  to  remedy  this  evil,  is  not  to  conceal  the 
alterations,  but  to  remove  them,  by  giving  a  fair  copy  of  his 
Doctors.     At  present,  however,  he  saves  his  page  at  the  expense 
of  his  veracity  and  honesty.     Instead  of  making  his  notes  plain 
for  common  readers,  and  opening  them  by  distinct  references, 
he  makes  them  short,  contracted,  and  to  most  men,  unintelligi- 
blej  and  then  wraps  up  a  great  number  of  them  in  a  bundle, 
not  with  the  order  of  a  pedlar's  pack,  but  with  the  confusion  of 
a  rag-man's  sack.     With  the  exception  of  one  little  note  of  less 
than  a  line,  all  my  Opponent's  notes  on  eight  chapters  now 
before  me,  are  squeezed  into  one  of  these  bales,  to  which  there 
is  only  one  reference  in  the  whole  translation.  Snugly  enclosed 
in  the  centre  of  this  astonishing  hurra's  nest,  you  find  the  fol- 
lowing note,  viz.  '*v.  29.  '  Church  of  God;' Dod.  *  Of  the  Lord;' 
Griesbach."     This  I  perceive  to  be  a  note  on  the  29th  verse  of 
something.     Going  very  little  farther  back,  I  find  "  Chap,  xx." 
This  therefore  must  be  the  29th  verse  of  the  20th  Chapter  of 
some  book.     Anxious  to  find  the  name  of  the  book,  I  in  vain 
explore  this  branch  of  notes  to  its  source.     Being  disappointed 
here,  I  examine  the  batch  of  notes  preceding  it,  and  the  one 
preceding  that,  until  I  have  tried  as  many  as  you  have  fingers 
and  toes,  without  being  able  to  discover  the  name  of  the  book  to 
which  one  note  belongs.     Here  he  will   say  that  this  defect  in 
the  notes  is  supplied  by  the  "references  to  them  at  the  bottom 
of  the  page,"  where  the  text  is  found  in  the  translation.     This 
would  have  been  the  case  in  some  measure,  if  he  had  performed 
his  promise  in  making  those  references  at  the  bottom  of  the  page. 
But  the  text  to  which  this  note  belongs,  is  on  page  266.     Here 
there  is  no  reference,  nor  on   any  preceding  page  nearer  than 


*  (  111  ) 

259,  where  another  verse  of  another  chapter  gives  occasion  to 
refer  to  this  mass  of  notes,  seven  pages  before  the  text  in  ques- 
tion, and  thirteen  pages  before  the  last  text  contained  in  the 
mass.  After  a  tedious  search  you  can  discover  that  his  "v,fi9," 
means  not  the  29th,  but  the  28th  verse  of  the  20th  Chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  and  that  his  ♦'  *  Church  of  Godj'  Dod. 
*  Of  the  Lord;'  Griesbach,"  means  that  Doddridge  agrees  with 
our  bible  in  giving  the  name  of  God  to  him  who  purchased  the 
church  with  his  blood,  whereas  my  Opponent  had  rejected  Dod- 
dridge, and  followed  Griesbach,  in  substituting  the  word  Lord, 
In  answer  to  his  detector  in  the  Western  Luminary  (6)  he  de- 
fends this  substitution  by  observing,  '*  I  said  in  the  preface  I 
"  gave  the  most  conspicuous  place  to  that  reading  or  rendering 
"  which  I  thought  deserved  it^-and  so  it  happens  here."  Yes, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  he  puts  into  the  text  of  this  new 
translation,  whatever  he  thinks  deserves  it,  and  then  publishes 
this  compilation  of  a  Unitarian  Baptist,  as  the  work  of  three 
Presbyterian  Pedobaptist  Doctors  1 1 1 

As  my  Opponent  in  connexion  with  the  above  remark,  gave 
his  reason  at  large,  for  supplanting  Doddridge  with  another  read- 
ing, indulge  me  with  the  liberty  of  paying  a  moment's  attention 
to  them.  They  are  three.  One  is  that  Griesbach  "  decides  in 
favour  of  the  latter."  Another  is  that  Ireneus  '*  quotes  it  as  in 
the  new  translation."  A  third  is  that  "  The  Syriac  translation, 
the  oldest  in  the  world,  has  it  Zon/." 

The  two  last  reasons  are  alledged  facts  which  he  observes, 
**  I  fMr.  Campbell]  added  in  my  own  mind  to  the  authority  of 
Griesbach."  Thus  my  Opponent,  with  all  his  professed  oppo- 
sition to  creeds  and  confessions  of  human  composition,  is  not  yet 
escaped  from  human  authority.  In  favour  of  a  Unitarian  trans- 
lation of  Acts  xvi.  30,  he  gives  no  other  authority  than  that  of 
Wakefield,  a  Unitarian  writer:  and  in  favour  of  a  Unitarian 
reading  of  Acts  xx.  28,  he  gives  "  the  authority  of  Griesbach," 
whom   the  Unitarians  claim.      Real  Christians   call   no   man 


(6)  For  Jan  3,  1827. 


(   11^   )    . 

Father;  and  they  adopt  a  human  creed,  as  they  would  preach  or 
hear  a  human  sermon;  because  they  believe  it  to  be  founded 
upon  the  scriptures.  But  many  unregenerate  persons  receive 
this  creed,  as  my  Opponent  once  did  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, upon  no  other  ground  than  human  authority;  and  they 
afterwards  reject  it,  as  my  Opponent  has  done,  because  they 
prefer  a  Unitarian  Master  to  any  other.  Here  also  it  may  jiot 
be  improper  to  observe,  as  the  writer  in  the  Western  Luminary 
has  done,  that  the  celebrated  Nolan  has  proved  that  the  criteria 
by  which  Griesbach  has  made  his  decision,  are  fundamentally 
erroneous,  and  Wakefield  himself  has  decided  against  him  in 
this  instance. 

In  answer  to  my  Opponent's  second  reason,  drawn  from  the 
testimony  of  one  of  the  Fathers,  in  favour  of  his  reading,  I 
would  observe  that  Middleton,  who  is  not  decided  in  favour  of 
our  reading  of  the  passage,  still  says  that  "  it  is  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to  by  a  great  many  of  the  Fathers." 

My  Opponent's  third  reason  exhibits,  if  I  mistake  not,  a 
greater  degree  of  moderation  than  he  is  accustomed  to.  He 
only  says  that  "The  Syriac  translation,  the  oldest  in  the  world, 
has  it  Lord,^^  Considering  the  liberties  which  he  usually  takes, 
we  should  expect  him  to  claim  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  is  the 
next  oldest  in  the  world;  and  the  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  which 
are  highly  esteemed  by  some.  Griesbach,  my  Opponent's  Mas- 
ter, actually  did  claim  the  Ethiopic;  in  consequence  of  which 
his  professed  brother  Wakefield  declared  his  testimony  on  this 
point,  ^^  infamously  false. ^\c)  Yet  it  is  not  more  false  than  the 
testimony  of  a  certain  translator,  in  claiming  the  Syriac  Ver- 
sion in  favour  of  his  reading.  The  Syriac  Version  has  neither 
his  reading  nor  ours,(c?)  but  a  reading  which  is  found  in  no 
Manuscript,  and  which  both  parties  consider  unsupported  by 
evidence.  But  my  Opponent,  no  doubt,  thinks  that  he  has  as 
good  a  right  to  alter  ancient  translations  as  modern  ones;  and 
in  this  I  agree  with  him. 

(c)  Middleton  on  the  text,  {d)  But  Messiah  or  Christ. 


J 


(     113     ) 

Before  I  dismiss  this  incomparable  of  my  Opponent,  permit 
me  to  notice  his  last  refuge  from  that  infamy  to  which  the  voice 
of  an  insulted  and  defrauded  people  will  consign  him.  When 
his  Prospectus  says  that  he  will  translate  such  words  as  the 
three  Doctors  had  adopted,  he  adds,  '^  But  in  doing  this  [that  is, 
**  in  translating,]  we  shall  not  depart  in  any  instance  from  the 
**  meaning  which  they  have  declared  those  words  to  convey?^  In 
answering  his  newspaper  antagonist,  the  **  Friend  of  Truth," 
he  refers  to  this  as  a  '^  promise  of  great  importance,"  and  adds, 
*<  Now  it  can  be  proven  in  any  court  of  law  or  equity  where  the 
*'  English  language  is  spoken,  that  I  have  not,  in  one  instance, 
**  departed  from  this  promise.  I  challenge  all  the  colleges  and 
"  divines  on  this  continent,  to  shew  that  I  have  not,  in  every 
**  instance,  so  done.  Let  this  Doctor  of  divinity,  this  *  Friend 
"  to  Truth'  make  an  attempt." 

This  pompous  challenge  would  make  some  take  it  for  granted 
that  my  Opponent  never  alters  the  meaning  of  either  of  his 
Doctors,  although  he  may  alter  his  words.  But  if  this  bf.  the 
case,  why  does  he,  according  to  his  Preface, (e)  substitute  the 
words  of  Dr.  Campbell  for  those  of  Doddridge  or  Macknight, 
in  every  passage  whicl,i  he  has  translated  ?  and  why  does  he 
give  as  a  reason  for  this,  the  superior  '*  correctness  and  elegance" 
of  his  translations  ?  Is  there  no  difference  of  meaning  between 
Dr.  Campbell's  correct  and  elegant  translations,  and  those  for 
which  they  are  substituted  ?  But  correct  and  elegant  as  Dr. 
Campbell  is,  he  is  not  to  compare  with  my  Opponent,  to  whose 
translations,  those  of  Dr.  Campbell  as  well  as  Macknight  and 
Doddridge  must  give  way,  in  order  to  form  a  book  concerning 
which  it  may  be  said,  that  *'the  ideas  communicated  by  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  incomparably 
better  expressed  in  this  than  in  any  volume  ever  presented  in 
our  mother  tongue."  Can  this  much  altered  translation  be 
incomparably  better  than  its  models,  as  published  by  themselves, 
or  in  the  London  Edition,  without  any  change  in  the  meaning  of 

{€)  p.  10. 


(     114     ) 

one  word  ?  If  there  be  no  dift'erence  in  meaning,  how  comes  it 
to  pass  that  when  he  substitutes  hades  for  Doddridge's  hell,  he 
gives  as  a  reason  that  the  word  "  is  very  improperly  translated 
hell?^^{f)  Is  there  no  difference  between  the  original  and  a 
very  improper  translation  ?  Taking  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
as  a  specimen  of  the  whole  work,  he  says,  in  his  answer  to  the 
«  Friend  of  Truth,"  "  About  ffty  times  you  will  find  Mac- 
knight  in  the  Appendix  in  this  one  Epistle,"  and  then  otfers  a 
guess  that  there  are  as  many  as  three  thousand  such  alterations 
in  the  whole  work,  instead  of  the  reduced  calculation  of  fifteen 
hundred  which  his  Antagonist  had  made.  Are  we  to  understand 
that  he  has  altered  the  words  of  his  authors  fifty  times  in  one 
Epistle,  and  three  thousand  times  in  all,  without  once  changing 
their  meaning? 

But  the  letter  of  his  challenge  calls  for  an  instance  in  which 
his  New  Testament  gives  a  meaning  different  from  his  Doctors, 
by  translating  a  word  which  they  had  adopted.  The  word  heresy 
is  translated  by  my  Opponent,  and  adopted  by  his  author. 
Doddridge  says,  "  After  the  way  which  they  call  heresy,  so  do 
I  worship  the  God  of  my  Fathers."  My  Opponent  says, 
*' After  the  way  which  they  call  a  sect,  so  worship  I  the  God  of 
my  fathers."  Now  if  it  can  be  shewn  that  my  Opponent  under- 
stands the  word  sect  in  an  indifferent  sense,  and  that  Doddridge 
understands  the  word  heresy  in  an  evil  sense,  then  my  Opponent 
has  altered  his  author's  meaning  by  translating  a  word  which 
his  author  had  adopted.  In  a  note  to  which  my  Opponent  refers 
from  this  text,  his  meaning  is  conveyed  to  us  in  the  language  of 
Dr.  Campbell.  After  explaining  the  original  by  class,  party, 
sect,  he  observes,  "  The  word  was  not,  in  its  earliest  accepta- 
"  tion,  conceived  to  convey  any  reproach  in  it,  since  it  was 
"  indifferently  used,  either  of  a  party  approved,  or  of  one  dis- 
"  approved  by  the  writer."  Thus  my  Opponent's  word  sect  is 
understood  indifferently.  Now  although  Doddridge  gives  the 
word  sect  in  his  paraphrase,  he  gives  a  reason  for  preferring  tlie 

(/)  Rev.  vi.  8.  Compare  Appendix  No,  21. 


(     115     ) 

word  heresy  in  the  text.  He  admits  that  on  account  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  primitive  Christians,  "  they  might  properly 
be  called  a  sect  or  party  oim^n^''^  but  he  says,  "  I  cannot  but  think 
**  this  a  place,  where  the  word  ai^fcrtf,  which  I  own  to  be  often 
**  indifferent^  is  used  in  a  bad  sense  ;  for  Paul  plainly  intimates, 
**  that  Christianity  did  not  deserve  the  name  they  gave  it." 
Thus  my  Opponent's  translation  gives  a  word  in  an  indifferent 
sense,  which  Doddridge  thinks  might  properly  be  applied  to 
Christians  instead  of  his  author's  adoption  of  a  word  in  an  evil 
sense,  which  Doddridge  thinks  the  Christians  did  not  deserve. 
Yet  my  Opponent's  promise  says,  *'We  shall  not  depart  in  any 
*'  instance  from  the  meaning  which  they  have  declared  those 
**  words  to  convey." 

Paul  once  preached  Christ  to  the  Jews.  My  Opponent  says, 
"  But  when  they  set  themselves  in  opposition,  and  reviled,  he 
shook  his  garments."(^)  Would  not  any  common  reader  un- 
derstand from  this,  that  the  Jews  reviled  Paul  ?  and  was  not  this 
what  my  Opponent  meant  that  they  should  understand  ?  Yet 
Doddridge  says,  *'  they  set  themselves  in  opposition,  and  blas- 
phemed" that  glorious  name  on  which  he  was  pressing  them  to 
fix  their  dependence.  To  the  same  amount,  in  other  places,(A) 
Doddridge  adopts  blasphemy,  and  my  Opponent  translates 
slander,  defamation.  It  is  well  known  that  in  common  language, 
reviling,  slander,  and  defamation,  denote  an  offence  against  our 
fellow  men;  whereas  Dr.  Allison,  a  Baptist  Preacher,  in  his 
English  Dictionary,  says  that  "  blasphemy  is  an  offering  of  some 
**  indignity  unto  God  himself."  In  accordance  with  this,  Dod- 
dridge in  describing  the  Roman  Beast,  says  that  it  was  **  full  of 
blasphemous  names, "(2)  which  his  paraphrase  explains  by  its 
"ascribing  to  itself,  and  the  harlot  upon  it,  properties  and 
glories  which  belong  to  God  alone."  My  Opponent,  instead  of 
'^blasphemous  names,"  translates  '' slanderous  names." 

My  Opponent  might  here  urge  in  extenuation,  that  he  was 
following  his  perfectly  correct  and  elegant  pattern,  Dr.  George 

(5-)  Acts  xviii.  6.        {h)  Rev.  ii,  9.  13,  1.  (/)  Rev.  xvii,  3. 


{     116     ) 

Campbell,  as  he  promised  in  his  preface.  If  this  were  true,  it 
would  only  shew  that  he  made  two  promises  which  were  incon- 
sistent with  each  other:  one  is  that  he  would  always  substitute 
Campbell's  words  for  those  of  the  other  two  Doctors;  and  the 
other  is  that  he  would  never  depart  from  their  meaning.  But  if 
I  mistake  not,  while  Campbell  justifies  him  in  one  departure 
from  Doddridge(y)  his  principles  and  practice  condemn  him  in 
all  the  rest.  He  admits  that  the  word  blaspheme  should  be 
retained  when  God  is  the  object  of  this  offence.  In  the  last 
text  the  Beast  is  said  to  be  full  of  blasphemous  names,  because 
he  claims  divine  attributes  and  honors.  For  this  very  thing  the 
Jews  repeatedly  accused  our  Saviour  of  the  same  offence;  and 
in  no  such  case  does  either  Dr.  Campbell  or  my  Opponent  ren- 
der it  reviling^  slander^  or  defamation^  but  they  both  retain  the 
word  blasphemy.  "Who  is  this  that  speaketh  blasphemies? 
Can  any  one  forgive  sins  beside  God  ?''  "  For  a  good  work  we 
do  not  stone  thee,  but  for  blasphemy^  because  thou,  being  [a] 
man,  makest  thyself  God. "(A:)  In  these  texts  my  Opponent  has 
exactly  followed  his  model,  except  in  the  insertion  of  our  in- 
definite article  before  the  word  man,  which,  among  three  thou- 
sand alterations,  can  hardly  be  noticed. 

According  to  ray  Opponent's  translation,  Paul's  reason  for 
delivering  Hymeneus  and  Alexander  to  Satan,  was  **that  they 
might  be  taught  by  chastisement,  not  to  defame.'*  Although 
Macknight,  whom  he  here  professes  to  copy,  uses  the  word  revile 
in  his  commentary,  yet  as  he  expressly  declares  **  Christ  or  his 
doctrine"  to  be  the  object  of  this  reviling,  he  retains  blasphemc'm 
the  text,  according  to  the  principles  of  my  Opponent's  favourite. 
Dr.  Campbell ;  '*  that  they  might  be  taught  by  chastisement  not 
to  blaspheme. '\l)  In  another  instance  [m)  he  retains  blasphemers^ 
where  my  Opponent  substitutes  defamers.,  although  Macknight's 
commentary  explains  it  "  blasphemers  of  God,  by  the  injurious 
^*  representations  which  they  give  of  him."     I  cannot  tell  how 

ij)  Actszviii.  6.  See  his  Prelim.  Dissert.  9.  Part  2.  Sect  12. 

{k)  Luke  V.  21.  John  x.  33.        (/)  1  Tim.  i.  DO.        (w)  2  Tim.  iii.  2. 


(     117     ) 

many  cases  of  this  sort  his  book  contains^  but  I  have  very  little 
doubt  that  one  whose  time  and  patien<:e  would  permit  him  to 
wade  through  this  mass  of  perversion,  would  discover  many 
otiier  instances,  in  addition  to  the  seven  which  I  have  pointed 
out,  in  which  my  Opponent's  authors  adopt  a  word  with 
one  meaning,  and  my  Opponent  translates  it  with  another  mean- 
ing :  yet  the  promise  of  his  Prospectus  is,  "  But  in  doing  this, 
"  we  shall  not  depart  in  any  instance,  from  the  meaning  which 
*<  they  have  declared  those  words  to  convey."  And  after  the 
\york  was  published,  he  challenges  **all  the  colleges  and  divines 
*'  on  this  continent  to  shew"  that  he  has  "  in  one  instance,  de- 
"  parted  from  this  promise." 

My  Opponent  may  be  called  a  challenge-monger.  The  Re- 
formers used  to  challenge  that  they  might  debate  :  my  Opponent 
debates  that  he  may  challenge.  A  Reformer  once  contended 
ten  days  upon  the  ground  of  one  challenge:  my  Opponent 
does  not  stop  at  ten  challenges  in  one  day,  and  sometimes 
in  one  speech.  When  used  as  a  manoeuvre,  it  sometimes 
appears  ingenious^  although  it  may  be  disingenuous.  If  a 
man  accuse  him  of  Unitarianism,  he  challenges  him  to  prove 
him  a  Socinian,  as  if  Unitarianism  did  not  embrace  his  darling 
Arianism,  as  well  as  his  brother  Holley's  Socinianism.  A.  accuses 
B.  of  stealing  one  of  his  cattle,  B.  challenges  A.  and  all  the 
colleges  and  lawyers  on  the  continent  to  prove  that  he  has  stolen 
a  cow  ;  thinking  thereby  to  conceal  the  fact  that  he  had  stolen  a 
calf.  But  in  the  present  case  his  right  hand  appears  to  have  lost  its 
cunning:  for  he  challenges  the  continent  to  shew  one  instance 
in  which  he  has  departed  from  a  promise,  which  he  has  directly 
violated  in  the  seven  specified  cases,  and  we  know  not  how 
many  more. 

There  was  a  time  when  I  thought  the  Unitarian  Improved 
Version  a  non-pareU  in  theological  atrocity:  but,  in  respect  of 
fraud  and  falsehood,  this  Arian  Baptist's  New  Translation  is 
incomparably  beyond  it.  I  am  not  sorry,  therefore,  that  the 
word  Church,  which  introduced  it  to  our  notice,  is  not  once 
found  in  this  master-piece  of  deception. 


(     118     ) 
THE  POINT 

WHICH  WAS,  IN  PART,    INTERRUPTED  BY  THE  REVIEW, 

RESUMED. 

It  has  already  been  shewn  that  the  application  of  this 
word  to  the  Jews  in  the  Old  Testament  proves  that  they 
were  once  the  visible  church  of  God.  You  have  heard, 
moreover,  that  it  is  confessedly  used  more  than  a  hun- 
dred times  in  the  New  Testament,  to  signify  the  visible 
church.  Now  if  we  or  our  Baptist  friends  who  agree 
in  this  matter,  were  asked  for  our  proof,  how  could  we 
answer  more  properly  than  by  quoting  such  passages  of 
the  New  Testament  as  shew,  by  their  connexion,  that 
the  people  called  the  church,  were  a  visible  society, 
acting  as  the  consecrated  depository  of  the  oracles  and 
ordinances  of  revealed  religion  ?  There  are  now  before 
me  nine  authorities(n)  which  give  the  name  of  ecclesia 
to  those  who  had  the  worship,  discipline,  character  and 
condition  of  such  a  society.  Perhaps,  there  is  not  a 
regular  Baptist  on  earth  who  will  deny  the  conclusion, 
or  deny  that  it  is  authorized  by  these  passages  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  a  good  rule  will  work  both  ways. 
Jf  these  premises  prove  the  existence  of  a  New  Testa- 
ment church,  they  will  also,  if  they  can  be  found,  prove 
the  existence  of  an  Old  Testament  church.  We  are 
then  to  look  for  the  worship,  discipline,  character,  and 
condition  of  a  visible  church  among  the  Jews. 

(n)  Acts  xi.  26.  xx.  17.  xiii,  1.  xii.  5.  xiv.  23.  (comp.  3S.)xv.  41.  xvi. 
^.  Matt,  xviii,  17.  xvi.  18. 


(     119     ) 

I.  Worship.  ^^And  all  the  church  worshipped.'' 
^^  And  the  whole  church  took  counsel  to  keep  other 
^'  seven  days:''  '  in  religious  exercises/  as  Gill  says.(o) 
The  religious  exercises  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
such  as  the  following. 

1.  Sacrifices,  "Yov  Hezekiah^  king  of  Judah,  did 
^^  give  to  the  church  a  thousand  bullocks,  and  seven 
^'  thousand  sheep :  and  the  princes  gave  to  the  church 
'^  a  thousand  bullocks  and  ten  thousand  sheep :  and  a 
^^  great  number  of  priests  sanctified  themselves." 
''  And  they  brought  forth  the  he-goats  for  the  sin-ofFer- 
'^  ing  before  the  king  and  the  church ;  and  they  laid 
^'  their  hands  upon  them."  ''  Then  Hezekiah  answer- 
^^ed  and  said,  Now  ye  have  consecrated  yourselves 
^^  unto  the  Lord,  come  near,  and  bring  sacrifices,  and 
^^  thank-offerings  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  the 
^^  church  brought  in  sacrifices  and  thank-offerings ;  and 
^^  as  many  as  were  of  a  free  heart,  burnt  offerings.  And 
''  the  number  of  the  burnt-offerings  which  the  church 
*^  brought,  was,"  &c.(j&) 

2.  Festivals.  ''  For  the  king  had  taken  counsel,  and 
^'  his  princes,  and  all  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  to  keep 
''  the  passover  in  the  second  month."  "  And  there  as- 
''  sembled  at  Jerusalem  much  people,  to  keep  the  feast 
'^  of  unleavened  bread  in  the  second  month,  a  very  great 
^^  churchP  "  For  there  were  many  in  the  churchy  that 
''  were  not  consecrated :  therefore  the  Levites  had  the 
''  charge  of  the  killing  of  the  passovers,  for  every  one 

(o)  2  Chr.  xxix.  28.  xxx.  23. 

(A)  2  Chr.  XXX,  24.  xxix,  23,  31.  32.  xxx.  2. 


(     120     ) 

^^  that  was  not  clean,   to  consecrate    them  unto  the 
'^Lord.((7) 

3.  Prayer,  ^^And  he  stood  before  the  altar  of  the 
^^Lord  in  the  presence  of  all  the  church  of  Israel,  and 
^'  spread  forth  his  hands.  For  Solomon  had  made  a 
''  brazen  scaffold,''  ''  and  upon  it  he  stood,  and  kneeled 
''  down  upon  his  knees  before  all  the  church  of  Israel, 
'^  and  spread  forth  his  hands  toward  heaven. "(r)  Com- 
pare this  with  certain  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  which  Baptists  themselves  see  evidence  that  the  visi- 
ble church  of  God  is  meant.  "  Peter,  therefore,  was 
"  kept  in  prison  ;  hut  prayer  was  made  without  ceasing, 
^^  of  the  church,  unto  God  for  him."  ^^Now  there 
^^  were,  in  the  church  that  was  at  Antioch,  certain  pro- 
^^  phets  and  teachers."  "  And  when  they  had  ordained 
^^  them  elders  in  every  church,  and  had  prayed  with 
^^  fasting,  they  commended  them  to  the  Lord  on  whom 
^^  they  believed.''^ 

4.  Praise.  ^*  I  will  give  thee  thanks  in  the  great 
^^  church,  I  will  praise  thee  among  much  people."  The 
^^  great  congregation,"  as  our  bible  has  it  in  the  first 
clause  of  this  verse.  Dr.  Gill  explains,  "  the  church  and 
^^ people  of  God."  The  expression  in  the  last  clause,  he 
explains,  "  the  people  of  God  meeting  together  for  so- 
^Memn  worship."  The  Psalmist  says  again,  ^^The 
*^  heavens  shall  praise  thy  wonders,  0  Lord !  thy  faith- 
^'  fulness  also,  in  the  church  of  the  saints."  Here  Gill 
says  "  holy  men  are  meant,  such  as  are  called  to  be 
''  saints,  and  are  gathered  together  in  a  gospel  church- 

(r/)  i  Chr.  XXX.  2.  13.  17.  (r)  2  Chr.  vi.  12.  13. 

(v)  Acts  xii.  5.  xiii.  1.  xiv.  23.  (comp.  22. ; 


(     121      ) 

state. '^  The  same  explanation  lie  gives  of  the  following: 
^*  Praise  ye  the  Lord.  Sing  unto  the  Lord  a  new  song, 
^-'and  his  praise  in  the  church  of  saints.^^  It  is  plain  that 
this  is  directly  applicable  to  the  Israelitish  churchy  as 
well  as  prophetical  of  the  Christian  church.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  following:  "  I  will  declare  thy  name 
''  unto  my  brethren ;  in  the  midst  of  the  church  WiW  I 
''  praise  thee.'^(/)  Several  of  these  texts  mention  sing- 
ings one  important  means  of  ecclesiastical  praise,  (w) 

5.  Reading,  expounding ,  9,nd  preaching,  ^*  There 
"  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded,  which 
^^  Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  church  of  Israel,  with 
"  the  women  and  the  little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that 
^^were  conversant  among  them.'^  ^^And  Ezra  the 
"  priest,  brotight  the  law  before  the  churchP  '*  So 
^*  they  read  in  the  book,  in  the  law  of  God  distinctly, 
'^  and  gave  the  sense,  and  caused  them  to  understand 
''the  reading y  "1  have  preached  righteousness  in 
'*  the  great  churchJ\v)  Compare  this  with  the  decla- 
ration that  God  anointed  Isaiah  ''  to  preach  good  ti- 
''  dings  unto  the  meek  ;'^  that  he  anointed  our  Saviour, 
the  Antitype  of  Isaiah,  ''  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the 
"  poor;''  that  he  actually  "preached  in  the  synagogues  of 
"  Galilee :"  and  compare  the  whole  with  what  is  said  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  ^^that  a  whole  year  they  assembled 
"  themselves  with  the  church,  and  taught  much  people. 
"  And  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  in  An- 
''  \AOc\iJ\w)     Thus  does  the   connexion  of  the  word 

(0  Ps.  XXXV.  18.  Ixxxix.  5.  cxlix.  1.  xxii.  ?5. 
{u)  2  Chr.  xxix.  28.  Ps.  cxlix.  1. 
{■v)  Josh.  viii.  35.  Neh.  viii.  2—8.  Ps.  xl.  9. 
{w)  Isa.  Ixi.  1.  Liik.  iv.  18.  44.  Acts  xi,  26. 

Q 


(     122     )     . 

shew  that  it  denotes  a  society  consecrated  to  religious 
purposes,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

6.  Implements  dind places  for  worship.  ^^The  brazen 
^'  altar  that  Bezaliel  the  son  of  Uri,  the  son  of  Hur,  had 
^'  made,  he  put  before  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord :  and 
"  Solomon  and  the  church  sought  unto  it.'^  "  So  Solo- 
^^  mon  and  all  the  church  with  him,  went  to  the  high 
^'  place  that  was  at  Gibeon  ;  for  there  was  the  tabernacle 
^'  of  the  church  of  God,  which  Moses  the  servant  of  the 
^'  Lord  had  made  in  the  wilderness.'^  "  The  heathen 
^'  entered  into  her  sanctuary^  whom  thou  didst  com- 
"  mand  that  they  should  not  enter  into  thy  churchP 
^'  And  Ezra  the  priest  brought  the  law  before  the 
^'  churchP  "  And  he  read  therein.''  "  And  Ezra  the 
^'  scribe  stood  upon  a  pulpit  of  wood  which  they  had 
"  made  for  the  purpose."  "  And  the  king  turned  his 
"  face,  and  blessed  the  whole  church  of  Israel^  and  all 
*^  the  church  of  Israel  stood."  "  Even  them  will  I 
^'  bring  to  my  holy  mountain,  and  make  them  joyful  in 
"  m^  house  of  prayer :  their  burnt  offerings  and  their 
^'  sacrifices  shall  be  accepted  upon  mine  altar  ;  for  mine 
^'  house  shall  be  called  an  house  of  prayer  for  all  peo- 
^'  pie."  "  It  is  written,  My  house  shall  be  called  a 
^' house  of  prayer ;  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of 
^'  thieves. "(07)  Can  any  one  suppose  that  when  the  word 
church  occurs  in  the  above  passages,  it  means  any  thing 
short  of  a  visible  society,  acting  as  the  consecrated  de- 
pository of  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of  revealed  re- 
ligion ? 

(or)  2  Chr.  i.  5.  3.  Lam.  i.   10.  Neh.  vlii.  2.  5.  4.  2  Chr.  vi.  3.  Isa, 
Ivi.  7.  Mat.  xxi.  13. 


(     123     ) 

II.  Discipline.  The  rules  by  which  a  society  re- 
fuses candidates,  or  expels  members,  will  easily  deter- 
mine whether  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  body  or  not. 

1.  Preclusion.  Moses  points  out  some  characters  who 
"  shall  not  enter  into  the  church  of  the  Lord/^  until  the 
third  generation,  others  until  the  tenth,  and  others 
never. (?/)  If  this  law  goes  no  farther  than  to  forbid 
their  being  invested  with  ecclesiastical  offices,  this,  ne- 
vertheless proves  the  existence  of  a  church  to  which 
those  offices  are  attached.  This  will  appear  in  the 
following  words  of  Dr.  Gill  upon  one  of  these  statutes, 
which,  he  says,  ^^  is  to  be  understood,  not  of  the  sanctu- 
^'  ary  of  the  Lord,  or  of  being  refused  admittance  into 
''  the  church  of  God,  and  to  join  in  religious  rites,  and 
^'  partake  of  sacred  ordinances,  which  all  Israelites,  and 
"  strangers  that  were  proselytes,  had  a  right  unto  ;  such 
"  might  bring  their  offerings,  keep  the  passover,  &c.(z) 

2.  Exclusion,  ^^  But  the  man  that  shall  be  unclean, 
''  and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
^'  from  among  the  churchy  because  he  hath  defiled  the 
''  sanctuary  of  the  Lord:  the  water  oi  separation  hath 
"  not  been  sprinkled  on  him.'^U)  What  it  is  to  be 
thus  "  cut  off,''  Gill  professes  not  certainly  to  know,  but 
among  three  conjectures,  to  '^  be  excommunicated  from 
"  the  chureh,^^  is  one.  To  be  cut  off  '^  from  the  Is- 
^  raelitish  church-state,'^^  is  one  of  three  alternatives 
which  he  gives  us  on  another  similar  statute  ;(Z>    and  to 

(y)  Deut.  xxiii.  1 — 8. 

(z)  For  this,  Gill  on  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  quotes  Ex.  xii.  48.  49.  Lev,  xxii. 
18.  Num.  ix.  14.  xv.  14.  15. 

(a)  Num.  xix.  20.  (comp.  13,  to  which  Gill  refers  from  the  20th.) 

{b)  Ex.  xii.  19.  (comp,  15,  to  which  Gill  refers  for  a  fuller  explana- 
tion. 


(     l'i4     ) 

'^  be  excommunicated  from  them  as  a  church^^  is  only  a 
part  of  the  punishment  which  Dr.  Gill  believes  to  be 
contemplated  in  one  of  Ezra's  decrees. (c) 

III.  Character.  They  were  no  synagogue  of  Satan, 
or  ^^congregation  of  the  dead/' as  such  are  called  by 
Solomon. (^)  They  were  not  a  confused  and  unlawful 
assembly,  like  Demetrius  and  his  Ephesians.Ce)  Neither 
were  they  a  civil  society,  although  they  were  connected 
with  such  a  body.  When,  in  a  certain  case,  they  were 
called  ^^the  whole  church  of  the  Lord,''(/)  Dr.  Gill 
says,  "  they  don't  call  them  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
"  but  of  the  Lord,  because  it  was  not  on  a  civil,  but 
^^  religious  account  they  were  come."  As  they  were 
not  a  civil,  so  they  were  not  a  military  body,  although 
they  were  the  militant  church,  and  when  providentially 
called,  entered  the  military  establishment  of  their  coun- 
try: as  in  the  case  of  David  and  the  Assembly  who 
were  with  him,  which  Dr.  Gill  says,  was  a  "  great  part 
of  "  the  congregation  of  Israel,  and  church  of  the 
living  God."(^)  Its  members  were  consecrated  to 
religious  privileges  and  enjoyments.  It  was  given  in 
charge  to  the  Levites  "to  sanctify  them  unto  the 
Lord."(/i)  This  was  to  prepare  them  to  "worship  at 
his  holy  hill,"  which  "  holy  hill  of  Zion,"  Dr.  Gill  tells 
us,  means  "  the  church. "(z)  To  the  same  amount  does 
he  explain  JoePs  proclamation  for  a  religious  fast,  al- 
though it  speaks  of  children  as  belonging  to  the  congre- 
gation, and   partaking  of  their  consecration  and  their 

(c)  Ear.  X.  8.  (f/)  Pi-ov.  xxi.  16.  (e)  Acts  xix.  32.  39. 

(/)  Josh.  xxii.  16.  {g)  1  Sam.  xvii.  47.        (A)  2Chr.  xxx.  17. 
(/)  Ps.  xcix.  9. 


(     125     ) 

humiliation.  *^  Gather  the  people^  sanctify  the  church, 
assemble  the  elders,  gather  the  children,  and  those  that 
suck  the  breast.''(y)  In  accordance  with  this,  Gill  says 
that  Joshua's  reading  to  the  congregation  was  ^"^not 
before  the  men  only,  but '  with  the  women  and  the  little 
ones,^  who  all  had  a  concern  in  the  things  that  were 
read  to  them.'^(^)  From  this  consecration,  the  officers 
of  the  church  were,  of  course,  not  excluded.  "  A 
great  number  of  priests  consecrated  themselves.'^(/) 
This  ecclesiastical  consecration,  as  well  as  spiritual 
sanctification,  appears  to  be  contemplated  in  calling 
the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  ^^  the  church  of  saints.''(m) 
Their  imperfection  in  spiritual  sanctification  is  confessed 
by  all  parties,  and  taught  in  the  scriptures.  Sacrifices 
are  appointed  for  a  case  in  which  "  the  whole  church  of 
Israel  sin  through  ignorance,  and  the  thing  be  hid  from 
the  eyes  of  the  church.^\n)  This  is  the  text  by  which 
Gill  and  Ainsworth  prove  ^^that  the  church  may  err.'' 
But  on  account  of  their  perfect  Head,  and  that  degree 
of  sanctification  which  they  enjoy,  the  scriptures  call 
them  ^^  the  church  of  the  upright,"(o)  and  recognize  an 
evident  incongruity  between  church- membership  and  a 
life  of  iniquity.  ''  I  was  almost  in  all  evil  in  the  midst 
of  the  church  assembled, ^Kp)  These  things  evidently 
shew  that  they  are  a  visible  society,  acting  as  the  con- 
secrated depository  of  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of 
revealed  religion. 

IV.  Condition.    On  that  text  which  speaks  of  the 


(y)  Joel  ii.  16.  (comp.  15.  17.)  {k)  Josh.  viii.  55. 

(/)  2Chr.  XXX.  24.  (m)  Ps.  Ixxxix.  5.  cxlix.  1. 

in)  Lev.  iv.  13.         (o)  Ps.  cxi.  1.  {fi)  Prov.  v.  14. 


(     126     ) 

trumpets  which  were  made  ^^for  the  calling  of  the 
church,  and  for  the  journeying  of  the  camps^l^')  Dr. 
Gill  takes  occasion  to  remark  that  the  Christian  church 
is  in  the  same  condition :  "  Saints  are  pilgrims  and  tra- 
"  vellers  ;  they  are  passing  through  a  wilderness^  their 
^'  way  is  attended  with  many  difficulties  ;  Canaan  is  the 
'^  place  they  are  travelling  to,  and  the  gospel  [like 
^'  the  trumpets]  is  of  singular  use  to  them  by  the  way 
"  both  to  refresh  them  with  its  joyful  sound,  and  to 
''  direct  them  in  the  path  in  which  they  should  go.'^ 
But  an  inspired  writer  has  said  concerning  Christ's  pre- 
sence with  the  Israelites,  ^^This  is  he  that  was  in  the 
"  church  in  the  wilderness,  with  the  angel,  which  spake 
"  to  him  in  the  Mount  Sina,  and  with  our  fathers,  who 
''  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us.'^(r)  The 
context  shews  that  this  person  who  was  with  them,  was 
the  Divine  prophet,  priest  and  king  of  the  visible 
church,  and  it  connects  him  and  them  with  the  taber- 
nacle and  temple  which  were  ecclesiastical  buildings ; 
and  thus  shews  that  "  the  church  in  the  wilderness''  was 
really,  and  not  nominally  only,  the  visible  church  of 
God.  Dr.  Gill  says  that  this  "  must  be  understood  of 
*•  the  children  of  Israel,  who  were  the  then  church  of 
''  God,  whom  he  had  chosen  and  separated  from  the  rest 
''  of  the  world,  to  be  a  peculiar  people  to  himself,  to 
^'  whom  were  given  the  z^orc/and  ordinanccsy  the  sei^vice 
<•'  of  God,  and  the  promises  ;  and  God  always  had,  and 
''  will  have  a  church  ;  though  that  is  sometimes  in  the 
^'  wilderness ;  which  has  been  the  case  under  the  gospel 

(7)  Num.  X.  ?.  (r)  Actsvii.  08.  (comp.  o7.  44.  47.) 


(     127     ) 

'^  dispensation^  as  well  as  before ;  See  Rev.  xxii.  6.  14, 
^'  and  it  was  a  peculiar  honour  to  Moses,  that  he  was  in 
"  this  church,  though  it  was  in  the  wilderness  ;  even  a 
^'  greater  honour  than  to  be  in  Pharaoh's  court.''  In 
accordance  with  this,  Paul  quotes  David,  as  saying  for 
himself  and  for  his  Antitype,  concerning  Jews  and 
Christians,  "  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren ; 
''  in  the  midst  of  the  church  will  I  sing  praise  unto 
^'  thee."(5) 


You  were  told  some  time  ago,  of  my  Opponent's 
statement,  that  ^'  the  term  church  or  kirk,  is  an  abbre- 
^'  viation  of  the  word  xv^iov  otxoj,  the  house  of  the  Lord, 
and  does  not  translate  the  term  5xxx»;cria."  But  if  ^xx^tiovo. 
church,  has  a  different  meaning  from  xv^vov  oi«oj,  the  house 
of  the  Lord,  then  it  must  certainly  have  a  different 
meaning  from  b^ov  ocxo?,  the  house  of  God,  Yet  let  us 
hear  Paul's  account  of  this  matter,  according  to  Mac- 
knight's  version,  from  which  my  Opponent,  contrary  to 
promise,  has  grievously  departed,  in  his  New  Transla- 
tion. The  Apostle  gives  certain  instructions  to  Timo- 
thy, ^'  that  thou  may  est  know  how  thou  oughtest  to 
^'  behave  thyself  BvMixi^Ssov,  in  the  house  of  God,  which 
^'  is  ixx-Kricid  Biov  li^vtoi  thc  ckurch  of  the  living  God,^\t) 
Here  is  an  inspired  declaration  that  the  church  means 
the  same  as  the  house  of  God,  and  of  course,  that  it 
means  the  same  as  the  house  of  the  Lord,  my  Opponent's 
declaration   to   the   contrary  notwithstanding.     When 

(»)  Hebr.  ii,  12.  (comp,  context.)  (j)  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 


(     128     ) 

Peter  tells  the  churches  that  "  the  time  is  come  that 
judgment  must  begin  at  the  house  of  God  ;'^U0  Dr.  Gill 
says,  "  By  the  house  of  God  is  either  meant  the  temple 
of  Jerusalem^'^  ^*  or  else  the  church  of  God,  which  is 
frequently  called  the  house  of  God.'^  When  Paul  sajs 
that  we  have  ''  an  high  priest  over  the  house  of  God/'(z;) 
Gill  says  that  it  means  '^  the  church  of  God,  over  which 
Christ  is  as  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  and  as  the  son 
and  owner  of  it.''  When  Paul  says  "  every  house  is 
builded  by  some  man,''  Gill  understands  it  of  ^^  the 
whole  church  in  general,  of  particular  congregations, 
and  of  individual  believers."  When  Paul  says  ^^he 
that  built  all  things  is  God/'  Gill  explains  it ''  of  Christ, 
and  of  his  building  the  church.^^[w)  This  explanation 
he  still  continues,  when  it  is  intimated  that  Moses  be- 
longed to  that  house,  as  it  is  repeatedly,  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  (^)  When  it  is  said,  that  ^^  Moses  verily 
was  faithful  in  all  his  house,  as  a  servant,''(y)  Gill  says, 
^^  a  servant  in  holy  things ;"  He  says,  ^'  he  was  not 
a  servant  in  the  world,  and  with  respect  to  civil 
things,  and  the  affairs  of  Providence,  but  in  the  church 
of  God,  and  in  divine  things."  And  as  the  scriptures 
never  once  intimate  that  this  church  began  with  Moses, 
so  neither  does  our  great  Baptist  Qpmmentator ;  but  in 
the  very  same  passage  in  which  he  says  that  "  it  was  a 
peculiar  honour  to  Moses  that  he  was  in  this  church," 
he  also  says  that  ^^God  always  had,  and  will  have  a 
church. "(z) 


[w)  1  Pet.  iv.  17.      {v)  Hebr.  x.  21.  (comp.  v.  6.)      {tj)  Hcbr.  iii.  4. 
;x)  Hebr.  iii.  2.  3.  (y)  Hebr.  Iii.  5. 

^r)  Crill  on  Acts  vii,  f^8,  quoted  above. 


(     129 


To  mc  it  seems  that  a  small  part  of  the  evidence  which 
has  been  adduced,  ought  to  convince  any  one  of  the 
truth  of  the  proposition,  that  Abraham  and  his  seed  were 
divinely  constituted  a  visible  church  of  God.  They 
have  been  shewn  to  have  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of  a 
visible  church,  the  members  and  officers  of  a  visible 
church,  with  the  constitution  and  the  express,  inspired, 
and  unequivocal  name  of  a  church.  Under  this  last 
point,  they  have  been  shewn  to  have  the  worship  of  an 
ecclesiastical  body,  such  as  sacrifices  and  festivals,  pray- 
er and  praise,  reading,  expounding  and  preaching,  to- 
gether with  ecclesiastical  implements  and  places  for 
worship,  such  as  the  altar  and  pulpit,  the  tabernacle  and 
temple,  which  latter  is  called,  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, the  house  of  prayer.  Under  this  point,  it  was 
proved,  moreover,  that  they  had  the  discipline  of  a 
church,  in  respect  of  preclusion  and  exclusion,  and  that 
the  scriptures  attributed  to  them  the  character  and  con- 
dition of  a  visible  church.  The  existence,  therefore,  of 
the  Patriarchal  or  Old  Testament  church,  is  as  certain 
as  the  existence  of  the  Christian  or  New  Testament 
church.  And  some  of  you  are  ready  to  say  that  if  my 
remaining  propositions  are  as  irrefrugably  proved  as  this 
first  one,  then  the  conclusion  in  favour  of  infant- baptism 

is  inevitable.     We  proceed  then  to 
R 


(     130     ) 


PROPOSITION  II. 

The  Christian  church  is  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamtc 

CHURCH  :    OR,  IN    OTHER  WORDS,  THE   JeWISH  SoCIETY    RE- 
FORE  Christ,  and  the  Christian  Society  after  Christ, 

ARE  one  and    the    SAME  CHURCH   IN    DIFFERENT  ADMINIS- 
TRATIONS. 

You  will  be  at  no  loss  to  account  for  my  calling  the 
Christian  church  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic,  when  you 
remember  that  this  is  the  figure  used  by  Paul  on  the 
same  subject.  The  Jews  he  considers  the  natural  branch- 
es which  are  now  cut  ofF,  and  the  Gentiles  he  treats  as 
foreign  branches  engrafted  in  their  place. (a)  As  our 
proposition  is  scriptural,  both  in  phraseology  and  doc- 
trine, my  Opponent,  for  the  want  of  argument,  falls  into 
a  rhetorical  ecstacy,  about  the  inferiority  of  a  branch 
to  the  stock,  and  the  consequent  inferiority  of  the  Chris- 
tian to  the  Jewish  church,  if  my  language  be  correct. 
On  this  ground  he  says  that  I  can  ^^  be  put  to  silence  by 
^^  every  stripling  who  could  ask  the  following  question  ; 
^^Is  not  a  branch  inferior  to  the  stem  or  trunk  from 
^'  which  it  grows  ?"(3)  I  suppose  my  Opponent's  strip- 
pling  would  hardly  deny  that  the  superiority  of  a  branch 
to  the  trunk  into  which  it  is  inserted,  is  the  very  reason 
why  engrafting  is  generally  practised.  But  the  scrip- 
tures say,  ''  behold  the  man  whose  name  is  The 
"  Branch.'^  ^'  Behold  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  right- 
^^  eous  Branch. ^^  ^^  And  there  shall  come  forth  a  rod 
<^  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  Branch  shall  grow  out 


(a)  Rom.  xi.  16—24. 

(A)  Mr.  Campbell's  Spurious  Dcl> 


►ate  with  me,  p.  1^4. 


(     131     )  ^ 

^*  of  his  roots. ^^(^)  These  passages  evidently  represent 
Immanuel  as  a  branch  of  the  stock  of  David,  and  David 
as  a  branch  of  the  stem  of  Jesse.  Now  I  will  let  my 
Opponent  or  his  stripling  say,  whether  Messiah  the 
Branch  was  not  greater  than  the  stock  of  David,  and 
whether  David  the  branch  was  not  greater  than  the 
stem  of  Jesse. 

The  proposition  in  hand  is  sufficiently  guarded  in 
respect  of  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  so- 
cieties. It  says  nothing  more  than  that  they  are  the 
same  church;  and  nothing  more  than  ecclesiastical  iden- 
tity is  intended.  You  know  that  that  lofty  tree  has  not 
changed  its  identity  since  it  was  a  plant  of  a  foot  high. 
Each  of  my  hearers  believes  that  he  has,  at  this  moment, 
the  same  body  with  which  he  was  born.  The  constant 
mutation  of  its  constituent  particles  never  makes  you 
doubt  your  personal  identity.  The  adjacent  town  of 
Washington ((/)  is  governed  by  the  same  board  of  Trus- 
tees from  its  foundation  to  the  present  day,  although, 
perhaps,  not  one  individual  remains  of  those  who  origi- 
ginally  composed  it.  When  the  Baptist  church  claims 
the  Petrobrussian  church,  and  the  Waldensian  church, 
and  the  Primitive  church  as  belonging  to  their  church, 
they  must  mean  nothing  more  than  that  ecclesiastical 
identity  which  v/e  say  subsists  between  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  societies.  The  change  of  administration  can 
hardly  make  a  greater  difference  between  these,  than 
the  change  of  condition  makes  between  the  church  mili- 
tant and  the  church  triumphant,  which  are  nevertheless 


(c)  Zech.  vi.  12.  Jcr.  xxiii.  5.  Is.  xi.  1 
(<0  The  first  two  days  of  the  debate  w 


were  in  a  forest  near  the  town, 


(     132     ) 

the  same  church  in  different  states ;  my  Opponent  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding. (e) 

This  view  of  ecclesiastical  sameness j  my  Opponent 
considers  ''  as  absurd  as  to  say^  that  the  human  body  and 
the  soul  are  one  and  the  same  thing,"  as  if  there  were 
no  difference  between  ''  flesh  and  spirit."(/)  As  the 
human  soul  and  body,  though  distinct  beings,  do  really 
form  one  person,  they  would  afford  a  good  illustration,  if 
they  did  not  exist  simultaneously,  but  in  succession,  as 
do  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches.  My  Opponent's 
sophism  concerning  the  supposed  identity  of  a  horse  and 
an  elephant,  because  they  are  both  creatures  '^{g)  or,  (if 
he  would  prefer  it,)  the  identity  of  a  quibbler,  and  a 
monkey,  because  they  are  both  empty  chatterers,  would 
answer  very  well,  provided  he  will  first  establish  the 
doctrine  of  metempsychosis,  a  doctrine  fully  as  correct 
as  some  which  he  holds  at  present. 

On  this  subject  the  Appendix  to  my  Opponent's  spu- 
rious Debate  with  Mr.  Walker(/0  has  several  questions 
which  it  is  convenient  to  answer. 

"  1.  Are  not  a  constitution,  laws,  ordinances,  sub- 
''  jects,  and  privileges,  the  chief  constituents  of  a 
^^  church  state  ?'' 

The  visible  church  is  a  visible  society,  acting  as  the 
consecrated  depository  of  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of 
revealed  religion. 

"  2.  Was  the  constitution  that  erected  the  Jewish 
"  nation  into  a  national  church,  the  same  as  the  New 
^'  Testament,  or  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church  ?" 

U)  Spur.  Deb.  with  nic.  p.  19?.        ('/)Si)ur.  Deb.  with  me.  p.  155, 
is)  i^i^ur.  Deb.  with  lue.  p.  83.      .  (h)  p.  195. 


(     133     ) 

The  Abrahamic  covenant  is  the  constitution  of  the 
visible  church  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  adminis- 
trations. 

"  3.  Were  the  laws  that  regulated  the  worship, 
^'  discipline,  political  economy,  judicial  proceedings, 
"  and  common  intercourse  of  the  Jews,  the  same  as 
"  those  under  which  the  disciples  of  Christ  act  ?'' 

It  has  been  ably  proved  by  Pedobaptists,  and  is  main- 
tained by  Dr.  Gill,  the  greatest  Baptist  that  ever  lived, 
that  the  political  economy  of  the  Jews  was  distinct  from 
their  ecclesiastical  economy.  But,  in  the  present  case, 
the  one  serves  as  a  very  convenient  illustration  of  the 
other.  As  the  national  identity  of  Israel  was  not  de- 
stroyed by  the  change  of  their  government  from  judges 
to  kings,  so  the  ecclesiastical  identity  of  God's  people  is 
not  destroyed  by  the  transfer  of  their  privileges  from  Jews 
to  Gentiles.  After  this  transfer,  the  Baptists  themselves 
must  confess  that  the  government  of  the  church-general 
underwent  many  alterations,  while  the  body  remained  the 
same.  If  I  mistake  not,  the  Baptists  generally  believe 
in  opposition  to  us,  that  the  government  of  the  Apostoli- 
cal churches  was  an  Independent  Congregationalism. 
This  they  probably  admit  gave  place  to  a  confederated 
parochial  Episcopacy,  or  what  is  now  called  Presbyte- 
rianism,  as  early  as  the  days  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp.. 
And  they  cannot  deny  that  Dioscesan  Episcopacy,  or 
full-blooded  Prelacy,  was  the  government  of  the  same 
church,  in  the  days  of  Cyprian  and  Augustine.  Neither 
can  they  deny,  that,  at  present,  there  is  a  great  variety 
of  laws  and  modes  of  discipline,  in  the  various  branches 
of  the  Baptist  church,  which  in  their   view,  do  not 


(     134     ) 

destroy  their  identity  with  the  church  of  John  the 
Baptist,  or  with  one  another. (2) 

^^  4.  Were  the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  state,  the 
*^  same,  with  regard  to  their  import,  times  of  obser- 
*'  vance,  number,  the  character  and  quality  of  the  ob- 
^^  servers  or  participants  of  them?'' 

There  was  a  difference  in  form,  yet  a  substantial  same- 
ness in  the  passover,  and  the  eucharist,  and  in  circum- 
cision and  baptism,  as  we  hope  to  shew  fully  in  its  place. 
Circumstantial  differences  effect  not  the  substance. 

"  5,  Are  the  subjects  of  the  Christian  church  to  be 
*^  such  in  birth,  education,  temper,  and  character,  as 
^^  the  subjects  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel?'' 

They  are  the  same  thus  far,  that  they  should  be 
believers  and  their  seed. 

^^  6.  Are  the  privileges  enjoyed  by  Christians  in  the 
^^  church  of  Christ,  just  the  same  as  those  enjoyed  by 
"the  Jews?" 

Privileges,  whether  in  church  or  state,  may  be  en- 
larged or  restricted,  created  or  suppressed,  without 
affecting  the  identity  of  the  body.  The  repeal  of  the 
ediot  of  Nantz  did  not  annihilate  the  French  nation, 
neither  did  the  toleration  act  under  William  the  Third, 
create  a  new  nation  in  England :  neither  did  these 
decrees  affect  the  identity  of  churches.  Popish  or  Pro- 
testant, Conformist  or  Non- conformist,  in  France  or 
England.     Virginia  would  still  be  Virginia,  if  she  were 


(f)  If,  by  common  intercourae,  in  this  third  question,  is  meant  domestic 
intercourse,  such  as  is  contemplated  in  Lev.  xx.  18.  Ez.  xviii.  6,  I  say 
that  those  particular  laws  are  still  binding.  It  he  have  regard  to  social 
intercourse,  I  say  that  we  are  now  permitted  to  eat  with  unbelievers. 


(     135     ) 

to  extend  the  right  of  suflragc  to  her  poorest  citizen, 
and  Pennsylvania  would  still  be  Pennsylvania,  if  she 
were  to  compel  Preachers  and  Quakers  to  perform 
military  duty.  These  United  States  would  still  be  the 
same,  Cthough  somewhat  disgraced,)  if  they  were  to  give 
constitutional  permission  to  the  society  of  Cincinnati, 
to  wear  an  empty  honorary  title  of  nobility.  And  the 
Presbyterian  ehurch  would  be  the  same,  (though  some- 
what enhanced  in  value,)  if,  while  they  advocate  a 
parity  of  clergy,  they  Would,  like  Martin  Luther,  leave 
their  Doctorates  in  Egypt,  where  those  vain  and  invi- 
dious distinctions  were  born.  If  a  change  in  respect  of 
privilege  must  destroy  identity,  then  Joseph  was  not  the 
same  person  in  prison  and  in  the  office  of  prime-minister 
to  Pharaoh. 

''  7.  When  he(y)  has  answered  the  first  question  in 
'^  the  affirmative,  and  the  next  five,  in  the  negative, 
^'  (which,  if  he  consults  the  holy  oracles,  he  must,)  then 
''  how  are  two  things  the  same,  which  differ  in  every 
^^  essential  particular?" 

The  author  of  the  above  questions  does  not  know  what 
is  essential^  and  what  is  not  essential  to  a  church.  He 
considers  not  only  ordinances,  but  ^^  times  of  obser- 
vance," essential.  The  excommunication  of  the  Asiatic 
church,  by  the  Roman  Bishop,  because  they  diifered 
from  him  in  their  time  of  observing  Easter,  must  please 
my  Opponent  much :  for  they  ought  to  be  out  of  the 
church,  when  they  lack  that  which  is  es?>ential  to  the 
church.     If  uniformity  in  ^Uimes  of  observance"  be 

(y)  Thet>e  questions  were  addressed  to  Dr.  Ely. 


(     136     ) 

essential  to  ecclesiastical  identity,  then  those  whose 
sabbath  begins  at  sunset,  and  those  whose  sabbath  begins 
at  midnight,  cannot  both  belong  to  the  Christian  church ; 
because  they  lack  that  which  is  essential  to  being  in  the 
same  church.  He  might  as  well  say  that  two  persons 
cannot  be  members  of  the  same  family,  or  citizens  of  the 
same  state,  unless  they  observe  precisely  the  same  time 
in  eating  and  sleeping.  There  are  four  things  essential 
to  the  visible  church:  visibility,  association,  consecra- 
tion, and  investiture  ;  by  which  last  I  mean,  being  in- 
trusted with  the  oracles  and  ordinances  of  revealed  reli- 
gion. Now  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies  were  thus 
invested,  and  were  consecrated  to  this  trust,  for  which 
they  were  visibly  associated.  As  both,  therefore,  were 
visible  associations,  and  both  were  consecrated  deposito- 
ries, they  both  had  all  the  essentials  of  God's  church  on 
earth ;  and  no  possible  difference  could  hinder  their  amal- 
gamation, any  more  than  the  difference  between  olive 
trees  w^ould  make  engrafting  impossible,  or  the  differ- 
ence between  different  countries  would  prove  an  insur- 
mountable obstacle  to  making  a  British  subject  an 
American  citizen  by  naturalization. 

My  Opponent's  eleven  objections  to  the  sameness  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies,  I  shall  have  to  notice 
concisely  in  an  order  of  my  own. 

1.  My  Opponent's  sixth  argument  is  founded  upon 
our  Saviour's  consolatory  address  to  his  small  family ; 
"  Fear  not,  little  flock,  for  it  is  your  Father's  good 
"  pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom. "(s)     It  was  pru- 

(r)  Luke  XX.  32.  Spur.  Deb.  with  ruc.  \..  — .^. 


\ 


(     137     ) 

dent  for  my  Opponent  to  spend  but  little  of  his  breath  in 
showing  that  this  text  excludes  the  Old  X^stament  so- 
ciety from  God's  ecclesiastical  kingdom,  because  if  it 
does  prove  that,  it  must  also  prove  that  the  Christian 
church  must  always  be  a  little  flock,  even  in  the  millen- 
nium, and  in  the  kingdom  of  glory. 

2.  My  Opponent's  seventh  argument  is  founded  upon 
Matt.  xix.  28.  ^^  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  verily  I  say 
^^  unto  you,  that  ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  rege- 
"  neration,  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  on  the  throne 
^^  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 
^^  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. "(a)  He  gives  it 
to  us  in  Campbell's  translation,  which  uses  the  word  re- 
novation instead  of  regeneration^  intimating  that  this 
renovation  means  the  institution  of  the  Christian  church. 
My  Opponent  then  says,  "  Observe  here  the  erection  of 
"  this  new  kingdom  is  called  emphatically  the  reno- 
''  VATTON  ;  in  the  common  translation  the  regenera- 
"  TiON,  not  the  continuation  of  the  Jewish  church." 

My  Opponent  has  considerable  versatility  of  ge- 
nius. When  he  is  at  a  loss  for  proof,  he  can  turn  any 
thing  into  evidence  by  merely  making  it  emphatical. 
By  this  means  he  can  even  impress  opposite  arguments 
into  his  service.  All  that  they  need  is  a  due  degree  of 
emphasis.  When  our  Saviour  promised  to  build  his 
church,  my  Opponent  discovered  that  to  build  a  church 
was  very  different  from  rebuilding  or  repairing  a 
church  ;  for  rebuilding  and  repairing  supposed  a  pre- 
vious existence  of  a  church  which  had  fallen  into  decay. 


(a)  Matt.  xix.  28.  in  Spur.  Deb.  against  me,  p.  228. 

s 


(     138     ) 

But  now  he  lays  an  emphasis  upon  regeneration  and  re- 
novatio7i,  words  equivalent  to  rebuilding  and  repairing ^ 
and  makes  out  that  they  do  not  presuppose  existence, 
but  the  very  contrary. 

3.  His  tenth  argument  is  founded  upon  a  passage 
which,  (strange  as  it  may  seem,)  is  a  direct  proof  of  the 
identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies,  according 
to  my  proposition.  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath 
^'  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall 
^'  of  partition  between  us ;  having  abolished  in  his  flesh 
^'  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments  contained 
^^  in  ordinances ;  for  to  make  in  himself  of  twain  one  new 
''  man,  so  making  peace.''(6)  According  to  him,  this 
proves  that  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  emphatically  made 

BOTH   ONE,  ONE    NEW  MAN,  that   is,  ONE    NEW  CHURCH. 

Very  well.  So  says  Dr.  Gill  also.  And  so  be  it.  My 
Opponent,  however,  believes  it  to  be  a  new  church,  as 
to  its  essence,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  a  new  church,  as 
to  its  administration.  The  second  temple  was,  in  one 
sense  a  new  temple,  but  in  another,  it  was  only  a  reno- 
vation of  the  old  temple.  So  the  higher  gate  of  the 
temple,  which  Jotham  repaired,  is  twice  called  by  Jere- 
miah ^'  the  new  gate,"(c)  in  consequence  of  its  repairs^ 
although  it  was  as  old  as  the  temple.  This  same  prophet 
says  concerning  the  Lord^s  mercies  *^they  are  new  every 
^'  morning  ;"(rf)  which  Gill  justly  explains,  by  saying  that 
they  are  "  daily  renewed  in  the  manifestations  thereof.'^ 
John  says,  "  I  write  no  new  commandment  unto  you, 
^'  but  an  old  commandment,  which  ye  had  from  the  be- 

(A)  Eph.  ii.  14.  15.  Sjmr.  Deb.  ag.  me,  p.  235. 

(c)  Jer.  xxvi.  10.  xxxvi.  10.  (comp,  2  Kgs.  xv,  55.) 

((/)  Lam.  iii.  2J, 


(     139     ) 

^'  ginning."  This,  Dr.  Gill  thinks,  is  the  law  of  love. 
And  the  same  law  of  love,  he  thinks,  is  meant  in  the 
next  verse,  which  says,  "  A  new  commandment  I  write 
^^  unto  you.''(e)  This  he  says,  ^^is  the  same  with  the 
"  former,  considered  in  different  respects.  The  com- 
''  mand  of  brotherly  love  is  a  new  one ;  that  is,  it  is  an 
"  excellent  one,  as  a  ntw  name  is  an  excellent  name, 
"  and  a  new  song  is  an  excellent  one.''  So  the  Jews 
and  Gentiles  are  now  united  in  one  new  man,  or  new 
church,  because  there  is  now  a  new  administration,  and 
one  which  far  excels  the  old, 

4.  My  Opponent's  eleventh  argument  is  based  upon 
PauPs  declaration  that  we  have  received  "  a  kingdom 
which  cannot  be  moved. "^)  He  thinks  the  word  king- 
dom  here  means  the  New  Testament  church,  and  that 
these  words,  with  the  context,  amount  to  a  proof  that 
there  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  societies,  as  the  one  can  be  moved  and  the 
other  cannot. 

If  this  argument  prove  that  these  two  bodies  cannot 
be  one  church,  then  it  will  also  prove  that  a  human  soul 
and  body  cannot  form  one  person  ;  for  the  one  can  be  re- 
moved by  death,  and  the  other  cannot.  But,  if  Provi- 
dence permit,  I  hope,  in  due  time,  to  lay  before  you 
plain  scriptural  evidence  that  the  ecclesiastical  kingdom 
of  God  embraces  both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  adminis- 
trations. When,  however,  the  word  kingdom  is  used  to 
denote  the  latter  administration  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
former,  it  has,  of  course,  the  precedency  in  point  of  dig- 

(f )  1  John,  ii.  7.  8. 

(/)  Hebr.  xii.  28.  Spur,  Deb.  with  me.  p.  236. 


(     140     ) 

nity  and  stability,  as  the  soul  excels  the  body  with  which 
it  is  united.  That  this  word  does  sometimes  signify  ad- 
ministration^  both  in  church  and  state,  will  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  prove  by  my  Opponent  himself.  Where  our 
translation  says,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  un- 
^'  to  a  certain  king,'^  my  Opponent's  New  Testament 
reads,  '^  the  administration  of  heaven  resembleth  that 
^'  of  a  king.'^(/i)  This  is  a  copy  of  Dr.  George  Camp- 
bell, and  accords  with  his  Preliminary  Dissertation  on 
this  word,  in  which  he  says  that  "  in  some  of  the  para- 
''  bles,  it  evidently  means  administration ^  or  method  of 
''  governing. ^^[i)  Now  that  the  Jewish  administration 
is  removed,  and  that  the  Christian  administration  of  the 
church  never  will  be  removed,  I  have  never  denied. 
But  in  the  same  part  of  Dr.  Campbell's  dissertation,  he 
mentions  a  parable,  in  which  ^^  the  word  denotes  royalty 
"  or  royal  authority  f^  and  it  so  happens  that  the  phra- 
seology of  that  parable  is  exactly  parallel  to  that  of  the 
text  on  which  this  argument  of  my  Opponent  rests. 
This  text  speaks  of  our  "  receiving  a  kingdom  which 
^^  cannot  be  moved."  The  parable  uses  such  an  ex- 
pression twice.  '^  A  certain  nobleman  went  into  a  far 
country,  to  receive  for  himself  a  kingdom,  and  to  re- 
turn/' "  having  received  the  kingdomP[j) 

Instead  of  ^^to  receive  for  himself  a  kingdom,"  Dr. 
Campbell's  translation  has  it,  "  to  procure  for  himself 
royaltyy^  and  instead  of  ^^  having  received  the  king- 
dom," the  Dr.  renders  it  ''vested  with  royal  power  .'^'^ 
My  Opponent  promised  that  his  translation  should  be  a 

Ui\  Matt,  xviii.  23.  (z)  Dissert.  5.  Part.  1.  Sect,  7. 

\f)  Luke  xix.  12.  15. 


(     141      ) 

copy  of  Dr.  CampbelPs ;  and,  for  a  remarkable  thing, 
he  has  made  no  other  alteration  than  to  insert  our  defi- 
nite article  before  royalty.  Remember  that  my  Oppo- 
nent has  pronounced  Dr.  Campbell  ^^the  first  translator 
"  in  point  of  correctness  and  elegance  that  ever  gave  a 
"  version  of  any  part  of  the  scriptures.^'  And  for  this 
reason  he  has  altered  the  versions  of  Macknight  and 
Doddridge,  to  make  them  conformable  to  him.  Why, 
therefore,  did  he  not  read  his  favourite  text,  "  being 
vested  with  a  royalty  which  cannot  be  moved  V^  He 
cannot  plead  a  scrupulous  regard  to  his  promise  that  he 
would  copy  Macknight :  for  that  very  verse  which  he 
has  given  us  as  Macknight's  translation,  is  a  heteroge- 
neous mixture  of  Macknight,  Thomson,  and  a  certain 
gentleman  who  boasts  much  of  his  critical  acumen. 
Neither  can  he  plead  that  the  proposed  rendering  would 
materially  differ  from  Macknight,  in  sentiment:  for 
Macknight,  in  his  commentary,  expressly  declares  that 
the  word  kingdom  in  that  text,  means  "  that  excellent 
dispensation  of  religion,"  which  I  have  called  the 
Christian  administration.  Another  hint  of  his,  which 
may  tend  to  the  farther  elucidation  of  this  text,  is,  that 
this  kingdom  which  we  receive,  was  ^^  foretold  by  Daniel 
to  be  given  to  the  saints."  Daniel  says,  "  The  saints  of 
the  Most  High  shall  take  the  kingdom. "(A)  Gill  says, 
"  or  receive  it,  as  a  free  gift  from  God :"  which  latter 
translation  he  informs  us  is  agreeable  to  Munster,  Pis- 
cator,  and  the  Tigurine  version.  He  claims  the  Chaldaic 
Original  also  :  but  this  may  be  rendered  either  take  or 

{k)  Dan.  vii.  la 


(     142     ) 

receive,  as  may  also  the  Septuagint,  although  it  has  the 
identical  verb  which  is  correctly  rendered  receive^  in 
Paul's  text,  quoted  as  the  basis  of  my  Opponent's  argu- 
ment. Now  let  us  compare  the  Prophet  and  Apostle. 
The  latter  says,  ''  We  having  received  a  kingdom  [or 
royalty']  which  cannot  be  moved."  The  former  says, 
''  The  saints  of  the  Most  High  shall  receive  the  kingdom 
\ov  royalty']  and  possess  the  kingdom  [or  royal  power] 
for  ever,  even  for  ever  and  ever."  It  is  remarkable 
that  this  view  is  as  unequivocally  approved  by  Dr.  Gill's 
Commentary  as  by  Dr.  Campbell's  Dissertation.  Daniel's 
promise  that  the  saints  "  shall  receive  the  kingdom," 
Dr.  Gill  explains  by  saying  ^^they  shall  have  the  rule 
and  government  in  the  world."  This  interpretation  is 
corroborated  by  many  passages  in  the  Septuagint, 
which  I  need  not  take  time  to  repeat.(/)  Permit  me, 
however,  to  add  one  more  instance  from  my  Opponent's 
translation  to  the  same  amount.  John  speaks  of  a  woman, 
who  (literally)  '^  hath  a  kingdom  over  the  kings  of 
the  earth. "(m)  Instead  of  *^  hath  a  kingdom,"  our 
Translation  says,  reigneth,  and  my  Opponent  says 
ruleth.  This  supports  Dr.  Gill's  interpretation  that  to 
receive  the  kingdom,  is  to  have  the  rule  and  govern- 
ment;  or  to  obtain  royalty,  according  to  Dr.  Campbell. 
Peter  tells  believers  that  they  are  "  a  royal  priesthood." 
But  the  Septuagint  applies  tliis  very  same  title  to 
pious  Jews,  and  it  is  translated,  "  a  royal  priesthood," 
by  Thomson,  (n)      Their  ecclesiastical  administration, 

(/)  See  particularly  Dan.  v.  31.    2  Sam.  v.  12.     Also  ISam.  xxiv.  20. 
xxviii.  17.  2  Sam.  iii.  10.   1  K^js.  ii.  22,  and  a  number  of  other  places, 
(m)  Rev.  xvii.  18,  (n)  Ex.  xix.  6.  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 


(     143     ) 

however,  was  moveable ;  whereas  the  present  adminis- 
tration is  ^^  a  royalty  which  cannot  be  moved :"  but  is 
like  the  believer's  '^  crown  of  glory  that  fadeth  not 
away.'' 

5.  Several  of  my  Opponent's  eleven  reasons  for 
denying  the  ecclesiastical  identity  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  societies  have  now  been  answered.  His  first, 
second,  third,  fifth  and  eighth,  (o)  which  have  not  yet 
been  noticed,  all  relate  to  this  kingdom  or  ecclesiastical 
house,  of  which  we  have  already  been  speaking,  and  may 
be  more  conveniently  answered  in  that  part  of  my 
defence,  in  which  I  hope  to  prove  more  fully,  that  the 
house,  or  the  kingdom  of  God,  embraces  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  administrations.  His  fourth  and  ninth  rea- 
sons(/?)  relate  to  the  terms  of  admission,  circumcision 
and  baptism.  These  will  be  effectually  answered  by 
proving,  as  I  hope  to  do,  under  my  third  proposition, 
that  circumcision  and  Baptism  are  one  and  the  same  seal 
in  substance,  though  in  different  forms. 

After  the  attention  which  has  now  been  given  to  my 
Opponent's  objections  to  the  proposition  in  hand,  the 
evidence  upon  which  I  rest  my  belief  that  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  societies  are  the  same  church,  may  rea- 
sonably be  expected.  This  shall  be  given  under  three 
heads ;  the  sameness  of  their  religion,  of  their  names, 
and  of  their  covenant.  The  first  amounts  to  a  strong 
probability,  the  two  last  to  an  absolute  certainty. 

(o)  Spur.  Deb.  pp,  195.  197.  209.  229.        (/i)Spur.  Deb.  pp.  197.  234» 


(     144     ) 

POINT  I. 

God  gave  to  the  Jewish  society  before  Christ,  and  the  Chris- 
tian society  after  Christ,  essentially  the  same  religion. 

An  eminent  writer^  (g)  in  explaining  the  word  reli- 
gion, says  that  "  in  a  practical  sense,  it  is  generally 
considered  as  the  same  with  godliness  J^  It  is  godliness, 
or  piety,  or  experimental  religion  that  is  meant,  when 
some  entreat  their  friends  to  get  religion,  or  express  a 
hope  that  they  have  got  heart-religion ;  expressions 
which  my  Opponent  considers  ^^  very  vague,^'  and 
^^  very  much  at  random/^(r)  Perhaps  he  knows  more 
of  what  the  Apostle  James  calls  a  vain  religion. 

^^  The  religions  which  exist  in  the  world  have  been 
generally  divided  into  four,  the  Pagan,  the  Jewish,  the 
Mahometan,  and  the  Christian. '^(5)  Paul  says,  ^^  After 
the  most  straitest  sect  of  our  religion,  I  lived  a  Phari- 
see.''(^)  The  same  Apostle  tells  the  Galatians  that  he 
Jiad  his  "  conversation  in  time  past  in  Judaism,'^  and 
that  he  ^^proiited  in  Judaism,^  in  both  of  which  instances, 
our  translators  render  it  ^^the  Jews^  religionP{u)  In 
one  of  the  few  times  in  which  the  word  for  religion 
occurs  in  the  Greek  Testament,  it  is  rendered  worship- 
ping :  "  Let  no  man  beguile  you  of  your  reward  in  a 
''  voluntary  humility,  and  worshipping  of  angels.^^(i;) 
This  angcl-religion  is  very  general,  and  embraces  all 
the  four  sorts  which  have  been  mentioned.     It  is  an 


^] 


Buck,  in  his  Theologicjil  Dictionaiy. 
S]jTir.  Deb.  pp,  150.  151.        (s)  Buck's  Theol.  Diet. 
(0  Acts  xxvi.  5.        (u)  Gal.  i.  13.  14.        (v)  Col,  il  18. 


(     145     ) 

important  and  conspicuous  feature  in  the  religion 
of  the  Pagans,  Jews,  Mahometans,  and  Chris- 
tians. But  this  religion  was  not  known  to  the  Jews, 
until  their  subjection  to  the  Babylonians,  and  it  was  not 
called  Christianity,  until  the  Anti-christian  apostacy. 
We  see,  therefore,  that  there  are  two  sorts  of  Judaism, 
as  Paul  informs  nsyiw)  and  two  sorts  of  Christiani- 
ty, as  James  assures  us. (a:)  Now  I  will  very  readily 
admit,  with  my  Opponent,  that  degenerate  Judaism  is 
essentially  different  from  Primitive  Christianity :  but  it 
was  also  essentially  different  from  Primitive  Judaism,  as 
found  in  their  inspired  standards;  just  as  Popish 
Christianity  is  essentially  different  from  Primitive 
Christianity,  as  found  in  our  infallible  standards. 

When  I  say  that  God  gave  the  same  religion  to  Jews 
and  Christians,  I  mean  that  the  religion  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  that  of  t}ie  New  are  essentially  the  same, 
notwithstanding  the  great  difference  in  the  two  adminis- 
trations. My  Opponent  says,  Nay.  While  I  undertake 
to  prove  this  point,  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  remember 
that  all  real  christians  are  in  my  favour ;  not  even  the 
Baptists  excepted.  In  speaking  of  the  two  silver 
trumpets  used  by  the  Jewish  Church,  Dr.  Gill  says, 
^^  The  number  two  may  be  applicable  to  the  two  dispen- 
^^  sations,  under  which  the  gospel  has  been  ministered, 
^^  directing  to  the  same  Saviour,  and  to  the  same  way  of 
^^  salvation,  by  his  grace,  his  blood,  righteousness,  and 
"  sacrifice ;  and  to  the  two  Testaments,  which  agree  in 
^^  the  same  truths  respecting  his  person,  offices,  obe- 

(w)  Rom.  ii.  28.  29.  (jc)  James  i.  26.  27. 

T 


(     146     ) 

"  dience,  sufferings,  and  death ;  and  to  the  prophets 
^*  and  apostles  of  both  dispensations  and  testaments,  who 
"  have  united  in  laying  Christ  as  the  foundation. ''(y) 

The  Dictionary  of  Dr.  Allison,  the  Baptist  preacher, 
says  that  the  word  religion  means  ''  a  system  of  divine 
faith  and  worship,  as  opposite  to  others."  If  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  contain  not  only  the  same  system 
of  faith,  but  of  practice,  not  only  the  same  worship 
substantially,  but  the  same  system  of  government  and 
discipline,  then  they  must  contain  the  same  religion. 
As  this  is  a  subject,  which  alone  might  occupy  more 
than  a  week,  I  can  do  little  more  than  point  out  the 
general  features  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  systems, 
and  refer  you  to  a  few  obvious  scripture  proofs.  This 
shall  be  done  under  the  following  particulars. 

I.  Theology.  The  scriptures  of  both  Testaments 
contain  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  essence,  and  Trinity 
of  persons,  in  the  true  God ;  of  the  person,  offices,  and 
work  of  Christ ;  of  original  sin,  regeneration,  justifica- 
tion, &c.  Paul  says,  "  We  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings, 
"  how  that  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  Fathers, 
"  [the  Jews,]  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us,  their 
'^  children,  [the  Christians,]  in  that  he  hath  raised  up 
^'  Jesus  again.''  '^  Seeing  it  is  one  God  which  shall 
^^  justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  uncircumcision 
"  through  faith. ''(2r)  Peter  says,  ''  We  believe  that 
"  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we, 
'^  [the  Christians,]  shall  be  saved,  even  as  they,  [the 
'^  Jews.] "(a)     Understanding  him  here  to  mean  "  the 

(y)  Gill  on  Num.  x.  2.     (z)  Acts  xiii.  32.  Rom.  iii.  30.     (a)  Acts  xv.  11. 


(     147     ) 

Jewish  fathers/'  Gill  says,  '*•  For  they  were  justified, 
pardoned,  accepted,  and  saved,  in  the  same  way,  as 
"  the  saints  under  the  New  Testament  are  :  They  could 
''  not  keep  the  law  perfectly,  nor  was  there  then,  nor 
"  even  now,  salvation  hy  it,  only  by  the  grace  of  Christ ; 
''  and  in  that  way,  and  that  only,  Old  and  New  Testa- 
"  ment  believers,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  whether  circum- 
^'  cised  or  uncircumcised,  are  saved.  The  Gentiles 
''  were  not  saved  by  the  light  of  nature,  nor  the  Jews 
"  by  the  law  of  Moses ;  the  one  were^  not  lost  for 
"  want  of  circumcision,  nor  the  other  saved  by  it ;  the 
'^  only  way  of  salvation  to  both,  and  under  all  dispen- 
"  sations,  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''  Paul  says,  '^  They 
'^  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham." 
"  Which  shews,"  says  Dr.  Gill,  ''  that  iht  faith  of  Old 
'^  and  New  Testament  saints,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  is  the 
''  same  ;  their  blessings  the  same,  and  so  their  eternal 
''  happiness ;  they  have  the  same  God  and  Father,  the 
"  same  Mediator  and  Redeemer,  are  actuated  and  influ- 
"  enced  by  the  same  Spirit,  partake  of  the  same  grace, 
^^  and  shall  share  the  same  glory. "(6) 

II.  Morality.  Moses  and  the  Prophets  contain  a 
perfectly  pure  moral  law,  of  which  the  Decalogue  may 
be  considered  an  inspired  compend.  Concerning  this 
our  Saviour  says,  ^^  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to 
'^  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets  ;  I  am  not  come  to 
"  destroy,  but  to  fulfil."(c)  Moses  says,  "  Thou  shalt 
''  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with 
'^  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might."     Christ  says. 


(6)  Gal.  iii.  9,  is  thus  expounded  by  Gill  in  his  commentan'  on  Matt. 
vHi.  IX.  (c)  Ex.  XX.  3—17.  Matt.  v.  17/ 


(     148     ) 

**  Thou  shall  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
*'  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength,  and 
^^  with  all  thy  mind  ;  and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself."(c?) 
Moses  says,  ^'  Speak  unto  all  the  congregation  of  the 
^'  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them.  Ye  shall  be 
^^  holy,  for  I  the  Lord  your  God  am  holy."  Peter  says, 
'^  As  he  which  hath  called  you  is  holy,  so  be  ye  holy  in 
^^  all  manner  of  conversation :  because  it  is  written,  Be 
*^  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy.''(e) 

IIL  Worship.  Here  I  need  not  dwell  on  the  sub- 
stantial evidence  of  the  most  important  ordinances,  the 
Passover  and  the  Eucharist,  or  of  circumcision  and 
baptism,  which  may  be  fully  considered  hereafter,  but 
I  would  merely  refer  you  to  what  has  been  already 
proved  concerning  the  worship  of  the  Jewish  church  ; 
such  as  reading  and  preaching,  praying  and  praising,  &c. 

IV.  Government.  This  was  by  Presbyters  or 
Elders.  Moses  says,  ''  And  the  Elders  of  the  congre- 
gation shall  lay  their  hands,"  &c»  The  Psalmist  says, 
''  Let  them  exalt  him  also  in  the  congregation  of  the 
people,  and  praise  him  in  the  assembly  of  the  Elders,''^ 
Luke  says  "  And  when  they  had  ordained  them  Elders 
in  every  church."(/) 

V.  Discipline.  This  concerns  disciples,  in  respect 
of  their  initiation  and  their  regulation. 

1.  Initiation.  That  faith  is  necessary  in  an  adult 
proselyte,  under  the  New  Testament,  is  urged  by  both 
parties,  from  the  words,  '^  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved."     But  one  of  the  most  remark- 

(d)  Deut.  vi.  5.  Luke  x.  27,  (r)  Lev.  xix.  2.  1  Pet.  i.  15.  16. 

(/)  Lev.  iv.  XS.  Ps.  cvii.  3:..  Acts  xiv.  2.". 


(     149     ) 

able  proofs  of  this  is  found  in  the  words  of  Paul,  where 
he  shews  that  God  demanded  the  same  prerequisite  to 
legitimate  membership  in  the  Jewish  church.  "  Well ; 
'^  because  of  unbelief,  they  [the  Jews]  were  broken  off, 
^'  and  thou  [the  Christian  church]  standest  by 
^^  faith. ^'(^)  And  let  it  be  marked,  that  in  both  churches, 
believers  and  their  households  are  initiated. 

2.  Regulation.  Without  taking  time  to  quote  the 
authorities  at  large,  I  will  just  tell  you,  in  a  few  words, 
what  you  know  can  be  easily  proved  on  this  subject.  In 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  churches,  an  offender 
must  be  told  of  his  fault  ;(A)  in  both,  a  penitent  must  be 
forgiven  ;(e)  and  'in  both,  the  impenitent  must  be  cut 
off.O') 

POIXT  II. 

The  Scriptures  give  to  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies 
the  same  names,  in  such  a  manner  as  plainly  to  prove 
that  they  are  the  same  church. 

This  has  the  appearance,  and  only  the  appearance,  of 
contradicting  the  following  prophecies.  "  The  Gentiles 
"  shall  see  thy  righteousness,  and  all  kings  thy  glory:  and 
"  thou  [the  Jewish  church]  shaltbe  called  by  a  ntwname^ 
"  which  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  shall  name?^  "  And 
"  ye  shall  leave  your  name  for  a  curse  unto  my  chosen  ; 
"  for  the  Lord  God  shall  slay  thee,  and  call  his  servants 
'^  by  another  namePiJk)     A  diversity  of  names,  in  one 

i^g)  Mk.  xvi.  16.  Rom.  xi.  20.  {Ji)  Lev.  xix.  17.  Mat.  xviii.  15. 

(i)  Lev.  iv.  20.  Luke  xvii.  3.  (y  )  Deut,  xvii.  12.  Mat.  xviii.  17. 

{k)  Is.  Ixii.  2.  Ixv.  15. 


(     150     ) 

respect,  is  consistent  with  an  identity  of  names  in  another 
respect.  But  even  this  prophecy  concerning  the  change 
of  name,  proves  the  sameness  of  the  churches.  It  is 
not  said  that  the  Jews  had  been  called  by  one  name, 
and  another  people  should  be  called  by  another  name  ; 
bat  it  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  same  people,  whose 
name  is  to  be  altered.  ^^  And  thou  shalt  be  called  by  a 
new  name.'^  While  the  name  was  to  be  altered,  the 
people  were  to  continue  the  same.  Yet  how  the  same  ? 
Not  nationally  ;  for  those  who  bore  the  old  name  were 
Jew's,  and  those  who  were  to  bear  the  new  name  were 
Gentiles:  they  were  the  same  people,  therefore,  con- 
sidered as  the  church,  the  professed  servants  of 
God ;  for  he  says  that  he  will  "  call  his  servants  by  ano- 
ther name.'^  This  change  of  name  only  points  out  the 
change  of  administration,  while  an  inter-community  of 
names  shews  the  sameness  of  the  church. 

This  inter-community  of  names  is  visible  throughout 
the  scriptures.  Moses  calls  the  Jews?  God's  peculiar 
treasure,  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  an  holy  nation. 
Peter  calls  the  Christians  "  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal 
priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people. ''(/)  There 
are  also  many  other  figurative  appellations  which,  in 
their  connexion,  shew  clearly  that  these  two  adminis- 
trations are  called  by  the  same  name,  because  they  are, 
ecclesiastically,  the  same  thing.  It  is  in  this  sense,  that 
they  are  called  a  tree  and  vineyard  ;  a  foundation,' floor, 
and  house ;  a  kingdom  and  commonwealth ;  man  and 
body;  brethren,  bride,  and  children. 

(/)  Ex.  xix.  5.  6.   \  Pet.  ii.  9. 


(     151     ) 

I.  Tree.  Of  this  the  Apostle  Paul  speaks  largely  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.(m)  My  Opponent,  in  his 
Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker, (n)  speaks  of  it  as 
follows,  viz.  ^^Distinguished  commentators  have  found 
^^  it  extremely  difficult  to  comprehend  every  thing  the 
"  Apostle  says  in  this  eleventh  chapter.  Therefore,  we 
'^  find  the  ablest  of  them  differing  among  themselves. 
"  One  cause  of  this  difficulty,  I  presume,  is  the  Apos- 
'^  tie's  so  frequently  referring  from  one  part  of  the  sub- 

^^ject  to  another so  often  stating  and  applying  his 

"  remarks  in  sudden  transitions  from  Jews  to  Gentiles. 
"Another  difficulty  in  expounding  the  metaphors  is, 
'^  that  the  engrafting  spoken  of,  appears  to  be  predica- 
"  ted  upon  a  mistaken  view  of  grafting.  A  wild  olive 
"  into  a  good  olive,  doe»  not  improve  the  wild  olive ;  the 
''  fruit  being  similar  to  the  cion  engrafted,  and  not  simi- 
"  lar  to  the  stalk.  But  the  Apostle's  design  was  to  shew 
"  that  the  Gentiles  partook  equally  with  the  Jew,  as  the 
''  engrafted  cion  equally  partakes  with  the  natural 
''  branch,  in  the  sap  and  vigour  of  the  root.'' 

If  I  am  not  egregiously  mistaken,  my  Opponent  has, 
in  this  extract,  displayed  a  modesty  to  which  he  is  usu- 
ally a  stranger.  He  generally  speaks  as  if  those  subjects 
which  puzzled  and  divided  the  ablest  commentators 
were  perfectly  translucent  to  his  penetrating  eye.  He 
not  unfrequently  spurns  the  opinion  of  the  most  distin- 
guished expositors,  Baptist  as  well  as  Pedobaptist ;  and 
advances  his  own  dogmas  with  the  lofty  confidence,  of 
one  who  had  a  grain  of  intelligence  diluted  with  an 

(m)  Rom.  xi.  16—24,  (n)  p.  28.  Note. 


(     152     ) 

ounce  of  self-conceit.  But  when  he  comes  to  the  Abra- 
hamic  Olive-tree,  with  its  Jewish  and  Gentile  branches, 
his  confidence  for  a  while  forsakes  him ;  it  is  all  involved 
in  obscurity,  to  himself  and  to  the  ablest  commentators, 
if  not  to  Paul  also.  He  even  sees  something  in  the  sa- 
cred text,  very  much  resembling  those  "  far-fetched 
analogies  and  inaccurate  reasonings''  which  Unitarians 
often  discover  in  the  Apostle's  writings.  He  tells  us  that 
^'  the  engrafting  spoken  of  appears  to  be  predicated 
upon  a  mistaken  view  of  grafting."  If  the  Apostle  was 
not  mistaken^  my  Opponent  certainly  is,  for  they  differ 
very  much  from  each  other.  But  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  Apostle's  views  of  grafting  were  differ- 
ent from  those  of  every  practical  man  among  you.  You 
practice  engrafting,  that  you  may  improve  the  fruit,  by 
a  change  of  the  branches,  while  there  is  no  change  in 
the  root,  the  trunk,  or  the  sap.  So  Paul,  with  the  eccle- 
siastical Olive-tree.  Its  root,  trunk,  and  fatness  remain- 
ed ;  its  branches  only  were  changed :  and  whether  it  was 
not  an  improvement,  to  exchange  infidel  for  believing 
branches,  to  exchange  the  Jewish  for  the  Christian  ad- 
ministration, judge  ye.  This  opinion  does  not  suffer  by 
a  closer  examination. 

1.  The  root.  It  is  equally  consistent  with  the  Pedo- 
baptist  system,  to  consider  this  as  referring  to  Christ  or 
to  Abraham,  the  original  or  derived  root.  When  the 
figure  of  a  building  instead  of  a  tree  is  used,  the  pro- 
phets and  apostles  are  spoken  of  as  a  foundation^  but 
Christ  is  the  foundation  of  foundations.     When  Christ  is 


{     153     ) 

said  to  be  '^  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David/'(o)  the 
sense  is,  that  he  is  the  Father  as  well  as  the  son  of  David. 
But  Abraham  is  said  to  be  ^'  the  Father  of  circumcision 
*^  [that  is,  of  ecclesiastical  initiation]  to  them  who  are 
'^  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the 
''  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he 
'^  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised.'^(j&)  His  very  name 
Ahraharrij  signifies  a  high  fatJier^  and  it  was  given  to 
him,  because  he  was  to  be  a  father  not  to  the  Jews  only, 
but  to  many  nations :  that  is,  he  was  the  root  of  that  ec- 
clesiastical tree,  which  bore  both  Jewish  and  Christian 
branches. 

If,  instead  of  to  Abraham,  you  should  apply  this  figure 
to  the  seed  of  the  woman,  revealed  to  Adam,  and  wor- 
shipped by  Abel,  Seth,  Enoch,  and  Noah,  I  see  no 
ground  of  objection  ;  since  Christ  is  really  the  Head  of 
the  church  visible,  as  well  as  invisible.  This  is  evident 
from  his  representing  himself  as  a  vine,  from  which 
fruitless  branches  are  cut  off.  The  invisible  church  has 
no.fruitless  branches,  and  from  it  none  can  be  cut  off.  My 
Opponent  says,  "Pardon,  justification,  sanctification, 
''  and  salvation,  are  inseparably  connected  5"  and  gives 
Paul  on  perseverance,  to  prove  it.  Dr.  Gill  says, 
''  There  are  two  sorts  of  branches  in  Christ  the  vine ; 
^'  the  one  sort  are  such  who  have  only  an  historical 
^^  faith  in  him,  believe  but  for  a  time,  and  are  removed ; 
^^  they  are  such  who  only  profess  to  believe  in  him,  as 
^^  Simon  Magus  did ;  are  in  him  by  profession  only.'^ 
^^  These   are   the    other    sort  of   branches,   who   are 

(0)  Rev.  xxii.  16.  (Ji)  Rom.  iv.  12. 

u 


(     154     ) 
^^  truly  and  savingly  in  Christ ;  such  as  are  rooted  in 

2,  The  fatness.  The  engrafted  branches  are  said  to 
partake  "  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree." 
This  means  ecclesiastical  ordinances ;  as  when  David 
says,  '^  They  shall  be  abundantly  satisfied  with  the  fat- 
^^ness  of  thy  house. "(r)  Dr.  Gill  says,  ^^By  his  house 
^'  is  meant  the  church  of  God,  of  his  buildings  and  where 
^^  he  dwells ;  by  the  fatness  of  it,  the  provisions  there, 
^'  the  word  and  ordinances,  and  the  blessings  of  grace 
'^  which  they  hold  forth. '^ 

3.  The  trunk.  This  must  mean  the  visible  church  of 
God,  or  the  invisible  church,  or  no  church  at  all.  If  no 
church  at  all,  then  the  Roman  converts  must  be  here  ad- 
dressed, as  having  the  privilege  of  being  engrafted  into 
some  worldly  kingdom,  contrary  to  the  authority  of  our 
Lord,  who  said,  ''  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 
The  Jews  also  are  to  be  considered  as  broken  off  from 
a  worldly  kingdom  by  unbelief!  whereas  their  unbelief, 
instead  of  breaking  them  off  from  a  temporal  dominion, 
riveted  the  Roman  yoke  more  closely  upon  them,  and 
made  it  at  last  the  means  of  their  destruction. 

Neither  can  the  trunk  of  this  tree  mean  the  invisible 
church,  for  from  it  no  branches  are  ever  broken  off. 
This  is  an  argumentum  ad  hoininern^  for  I  have  the 
pleasure  of  quoting  my  Opponent's  approbation  of  this 
principle.  After  citing  Paul  on  the  perseverance  of 
the  saints,  he  says,  '^  There  is  one  proposition  which  1 
^'  shall  here  submit ;  it  is  an  universal  negative,  viz. 

Jy)  Gill  on  John  xv.  2.  (r)  Ps.  xxxvi.  8. 


(     155     ) 

^'  there  never  was^  there  never  will  be,  a  child  of  Adam 
"  lost,  that  had  but  one  sin  of  all  his  sins  forgiven  him. 
^'  The  converse  of  which  is,  tliat  there  never  was  a  child 
^*  of  Adam  that  had  one  sin  forgiven  him  that  had  not 
"  all  his  sins  forgiven.     The  reason  is,  the  Almighty 
'^  does  not  his  work  by  halves;  where  he  begins  to  work 
"  he  finishes.  He  does  not  resemble  a  foolish  artificer  or 
"  mechanic,  who  begins  a  piece  of  workmanship,  and 
^^  after  he  has  blocked  it  out,  or  begun  to  work  upon  it, 
'^  throws  it  away,  either  from  versatility  or  incapacity  to 
^'  execute  and  perfect  W\s)  It  seems  therefore,  from  my 
Opponent's  own  shewing,  that  when  a  person  is  once  at- 
tached to  the  invisible  church,  he  is  always  attached  to 
it,  and  can  never  be  broken  ofF. 

As  this  trunkj  then,  cannot  mean  no  church  at  all, 
and  as  it  cannot  mean  the  church  invisible,  it  must,  ac- 
cording to  the  dilemma  stated  a  little  while  ago,  mean 
the  visible  church.    Here  another  inquiry  arises.     Does 
it  mean  the  Jewish  administration  as  distinct  from  the 
Christian?    or  the  Christian  administration  as  distinct 
from  the  Jewish  ?  or  does  it  mean  the  visible  church 
general  of  God  and  of  his  Christ,  which  embraces  both 
these  administrations,  which  began  with  Abraham,  or 
with  Adam,  and  which  will  continue  to  the  end  of  the 
world?     This  stern  cannot  mean  the  Jewish  administra- 
tion, because  it  is  in  this  very  trunk  that  the  engrafted 
Gentiles  flourish,  long  after  the  Jewish  administration  is 
at  an  end.     Neither  can  it  mean  the  Christian  adminis- 
tration distinctly,  because  the  trunk  existed  long  before 

(s)  Appendix  to  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  p.  176. 


(     156     ) 

that  administration  commenced.  But  my  Opponent  says 
that  ^^  in  a  still  more  enlarged  and  exalted  sense,  the 
^^  Christian  Church  is  the  good  olive  tree.''(^)  If  by 
this  still  more  enlarged  and  exalted  sense,  he  means  the 
visible  church  of  Christ,  as  constituted  with  Adam  or 
Abraham,  and  as  embracing  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
administrations,  he  means  what  the  premises  compel  us 
to  believe.  Dr.  Gill  says,  ^^  particular  believers  and 
''  the  whole  church  of  God  are  sometimes  compared  to 
''  it  ;'^  as  when  Hosea  says,  ^'  His  branches  shall  spread, 
and  his  beauty  shall  be  as  the  olive-tree,  and  his  smell  as 
Lebanon. "(w)  Jeremiah  says,  "The  Lord  called  thy 
''  name  a  green  olive-tree,  fair  and  of  goodly  fruit : 
^^  wdth  the  noise  of  a  great  tumult  he  hath  kindled  fire 
^'  upon  it,  and  the  branches  af  it  are  broken.'^ (a;) 

4.  The  branches.  As  the  stock  of  this  tree  has  been 
proved  to  mean  the  whole  visible  church  of  God  these 
branches  must  be  visible  constituents,  either  individual 
or  corporate.  Of  these  there  are  two  kinds.  Concern- 
ing ane  of  them  Jeremiah  says  ''  The  branches  of  it  are 
"  broken."  This  Dr.  Gill  interprets  of  "  the  high  and 
"  principal  ones''  of  "  the  Jewish  church  and  people." 
Concerning  the  other  kind  of  branches,  Hosea  says,  "His 
^'  branches  shall  spread."  Dr.  Gill  says,  "This  respects 
"  the  propagation  of  the  church  of  God,  and  the  in- 
"  terest  of  Christ  in  the  world,  as  in  the  first  times  of 
"  the  gospel,  and  will  be  in  the  latter  day.'^      Paul 

(0  Spur.  Deb.  with  Mr.  W.  p.  28. 

(w)  Hos.  xiv.  6.  comp.  Ps.  X\u  8.  cxxviii.  3. 

(t)  Jer.  xi.  16.  Althouvjh  (;ill  believes  that  Paul  alludes  to  this  in 
Rom.  xi.  17.  he  does  not  explain  the  olive-tree  in  either  place  with  en- 
tire accuracy,  nor  in  perfect  consistency  with  what  he  says  on  Hosea  xiv. 
6.  as  quoted  above. 


(     157     ) 

Speaks  of  both  kinds  of  branches,  as  belonging  to  the 
same  tree,  though  not  at  the  same  time.     The  first  he 
tells  us  were  ^^  broken  off/^     The  second  he  says  were 
"  grafted  in  among  them/'  or  "  in  their  place/^  as  Gill 
tells  us  the  Syriac  and  Ethiopic  versions  have  it.     Paul 
expressly  gives  the  name  of  Israel  and  Jacob  to  the  re- 
jected branches,  and  of  Gentiles  to  those  which  were 
engrafted,  (i^)    He  does  not  limit  these  branches,  (as  Dr. 
Gill  sometimes  does,)  to  the  ''  principal  members'^  of 
churches  or  nations :  but  he  uses  these  general  terms, 
with    a  general  (though  not  a  universal)  application. 
Neither  does  my  Opponent  understand  Paul  as  speaking 
of  the  high  and  principal  ones ^  but  of  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
without  regard  to  their  dignity  or  power.     This  is  evi- 
dent from  his  remark  concerning  Paul's  ''  sudden  tran- 
^'  sitions  from  Jews  to  Gentiles,"  and  from  his  decla- 
ration that  ^'  the  Apostle's  design  was  to  shew  that  the 
"  Gentiles  partook  equally  with  the  Jew,  as  the  engraft- 
'^  ed  cion  equally  partakes  with  the  natural  branch,  in 
''  the  sap  and  vigour  of  the  root.''(a7)     This  root^  my 
Opponent  declares,    ^'  was  Jesus   Christ.''      Dr.  Gill 
says,  "  This  is  not  to  be  understood  of  an  ingrafture  into 
"  Christ,  unless  by  a  visible  profession."     This  visible 
profession  must  be  in  the  true  church  of  God,  and,  of 
course,  the  breaking  off  of  the  old  Jewish  branches, 
must  be  an  excommunication  from  the  visible  church  of 
God.  Both,  then,  must  be  branches  of  the  visible  church 
of  God,  though  at  different  times  ;  and  if  Abraham  be 
their  ecclesiastical  father  or  rootj  then  the  Christian 

(w)  Rom.  xi.   17.  25.  26. 

(x)  Spiir.  Deb.  with  Mr.  W.  p.  28.  Note,  this  was  quoted  a  little 
above. 


(     158     ) 

church  must  be  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic  church  : 
and  if  the  Seed  of  the  woman  be  their  root,  then  the 
Jewish  society  before  Christ,  and  the  Christian  society 
after  Christ,  are  only  different  branches  of  the  same 
ecclesiastical  tree;  or,  in  other  words,  they  are  one 
and  the  same  church  in  different  administrations. 

This  conclusion  is  not  at  all  affected  by  what  Dr.  Gill 
says  about  the  "  Gentiles  being  grafted  into  a  gospel 
''  church-state  with  the  believing  Jews  ;"  unless  it  can 
be  shewn  that  one  truth  must  contradict  another.  Re- 
member that  the  old  branches  were  not  believing  Jews  ; 
for  they  were  broken  off  on  account  of  unbcliej\  from 
that  very  stock,  into  which  believing  Gentiles  were  en- 
grafted. It  is  true,  therefore,  that  there  is  a  simulta- 
neous union  of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles,  both  before 
and  after  Christ :  but  it  has  been  proved  to  be  equally 
true,  that  there  is  an  asynchronous  identity  between  the 
Jewish  society  before  Christ,  and  the  Christian  society 
after  Christ. 

II.  Vineyard.  Our  blessed  Lord,  in  one  of  his 
parables,  informs  us  of  a  man  who  planted  a  vineyard, 
and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  then  went  into  a  far 
country,  whence  he  sent  several  inferior  messengers 
successively  for  the  fruits  which  were  due.  Failing  in 
these,  he  sent  his  own  Son,  whom  the  husbandmen 
killed.  He  then  asks  the  question,  ^^  What  shall  there- 
"  fore  the  Lord  of  the  vineyard  do  ?''  Mark  well  his 
answer  :  ''  He  will  come  and  destroy  the  husbandmen, 
^'  and  will  give  the  vineyard  [the  same  vineyard]  unto 
'^  others.'^  As  the  context  says  that  the  Jews  ^'  knew 
"  that  he  had  spoken  thp  parable  against  them,"  they 


(     159     ) 

are  therefore  the  husbandmen.  Dr.  Gill  says,  that 
when  the  Master  went  into  a  far  country,  he  "  left  the 
"  people  of  the  Jews  to  these  husbandmen  or  rulers, 
''  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  but  chiefly  the  lattery 
''  to  be  instructed  and  directed  by  them,  according  to 
^'  the  laws  and  rules  given  them  by  the  Lord.''(^)  But 
after  these  Jewish  husbandmen  abused  their  trust  it  is 
said  that  the  Lord  "  will  miserably  destroy  those  wick- 
''  ed  men,  and  will  let  out  his  vineyard  unto  other  hus- 
^*bandmen.''  On  this  Dr.  Gill  remarks  that  ^^  it  was 
'^  a  righteous  thing  with  God,  to  remove  the  church- 
''  state,  gospel  and  ordinances,  from  the  Jews,  and  de- 
''  liver  them  to  the  Gentiles,  which  shall  render  him  the 
''  fruits  in  their  seasons.'^(2:)  Here  the  Baptist  Com- 
mentator agrees  with  his  Divine  Master,  in  considering 
the  vineyard  as  the  church  with  its  oracles  and  ordinan- 
ces ;  and  in  considering  the  Jews  as  the  first  tenants, 
and  the  Christians  as  the  last  occupants  of  the  same 
ecclesiastical  vineyard. 

III.  Foundation.  "  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more 
"  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the 
"saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God;  and  are  built 
"  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  prophets, 
"  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  sto7ie,^\a) 
Here  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  are  one  common  foun- 
dation, for  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies,  who  are 
supported  and  connected  by  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the 
chief  corner  stone,  or  connecting  foundation  stone  of 
Apostles,  prophets,  and  churches. 

(y)  Gill  on  Mk.  xii.  1.  (r)  Gill  on  Matt.  xxi.  41. 

(a)  Eph,  ii.  19.  20. 


(     160     ) 

IV.  Floor.  ^^  Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  will 
^^  thoroughly  purge  his  floor ,  and  gather  his  wheat  into 
^^  the  garner ;  but  he  will  burn  up  the  chaiF  with  un- 
"  quenchable  fire."(^)  ^'  O  my  threshing,  and  the  corn 
'^  of  my  floorP\c)  On  this  last  text,  which  was  spo- 
ken by  Isaiah,  Dr.  Gill  says,  "  it  is  the  Lord  that  speaks 
^^  by  him,  calling  the  church  of  the  Jews  his  floor ^  and 
*^  the  people  his  corn.''  If  he  does  not  intend  to  restrict 
**  the  church  of  the  Jews,''  to  the  Jewish  administration, 
he  is  perfectly  correct :  for  the  floor  does  mean  the  vi- 
sible church,  and  the  corn  means  the  Jewish  people  who 
were  then  its  members.  But  in  the  fulness  of  time,  this 
ecclesiastical  floor  was  found  so  full  of  Jewish  chaff,  as 
to  require  a  thorough  cleansing.  This  cleansing  was  an 
excommunication  of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  This  was 
not  laying  a  new  floor y  but  only  purging  the  old  one ; 
and  who  occupied  John  the  Baptist's  ecclesiastical  plat- 
form after  its  judicial  ventilation,  let  Baptists  say. 

V.  House.  '^  And  thou  shalt  say  to  the  rebellious, 
^'  even  to  the  houae  of  Israel,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God, 
^^  O  ye  house  of  Israel,  let  it  suffice  you  of  all  your 
''  abominations,  in  that  ye  have  brought  into  my  sanctu- 
'^  ary  strangers,  uncircumcised  in  heart,  and  uncircum- 
*^  cised  in  flesh,  to  be  in  my  sanctuary,  to  pollute  it, 
'^  even  my  housed  ^^  They  shall  be  abundantly  satis- 
<*  fled  with  the  fatness  of  thy  house,'^  "  I  am  like  a 
^^  green  olive  tree  in  the  house  of  God."(c?)  This,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Gill,  is  to  "  be  in  a  vtTy  flourishing  con- 
^*  dilion,  in  the  church  of  God,  which  is  here  meant  by 

(*)  Mat.  iii.  12.  (c)  Isa.  xxi.  10. 

Id)  Ez.  xliv.  6.  7.  Ps,  xxxvi.  8.  Iii.  8. 


(     161     ) 

*^  tlie  houst  of  God,^^     The  same  explanation  he  gives 
of  the  word  house  in  all  the  cases  which  have  just  been 
quoted.     It  is,  then,  an  undoubted  truth,  that  long  be- 
foi;e  the  New  Testament  administration,  the  Jewish  so- 
ciety were  the  visible  church  of  God.     They  were  not 
only  the  genealogical,  but  the  ecclesiastical  house  of 
Jacob,     Now  the  question  is,  whether  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal house  was  utterly  annihilated,  and  a  new  one  erected 
at  the  coming  of  Christ ;  or  whether  the  ecclesiastical 
house  of  Jacob  continued,  but  with  a  change  of  adminis- 
tration.    That  it  does  continue,  is  evident  from  the  an- 
gePs  words  to  Mary,  when  he  said  concerning  the  Mes- 
siah,   ^^He  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob,  for 
^^  ever.'^(6;)     This  house  of  Jacob  is  meant,  when  Paul 
says,  ^^ Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a 
^^ servant;'^    ^^but    Christ    as    a   Son    over    his    own 
^'  housePf)     Now  take  notice  that  Moses  and  Christ 
are  here  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  administrations ;  yet  the  one  serves  in,  and 
the  other  rules  over  the  same  house,  even  the  house  of 
Jacob,  over  which  Christ  shall  reign  for  ever,  although 
Jacob's  natural  descendants  have  long  been  ejected. 

My  Opponent's  fifth  reason  for  denying  this  doctrine, 
is  founded  upon  our  Saviour's  declaration  to  Peter, 
^'  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church. "(/)  "  This 
^'  church,  then,"  says  he,  ^^was  not  the  Jewish,  for  that 
''  was  built  long  ago — the  building  of  Christ's  church — 
"  MY  churchn  said  he,  is  yet  future — I  ivill  build  it, 
'^  the  foundation  will  be  laid  in  this  truth  concerning 

(e)  Luke  i,  33,  (/)  Heb.  iii.  2—6.  (/)  Matt.  xvi.  18, 

X 


(     162     ) 

^^  me. — This  truth  was  fully  established  in  his  death  and 
^'  resurrection  ;  and  then  the  building  commenced.  To 
"  build  a  church  and  to  repair  one,  are  actions  so  dif- 
'^  ferent,  that  babes  and  sucklings  can  distinguish  them. 
''  Mr.  M^Calla's  theory  is  subverted  upon  this  evidence 
"  alone,  if  there  were  no  other  proof  of  its  falsity. — Re- 
^*  member,  my  friends,  that  the  Messiah  came  to  build  a 
"  new  church,  and  not  to  repair  an  old  one.''  At  ano- 
ther time  he  represents  this  fifth  argument  as  drawn 
"  from  the  fact,  that  Jesus  taught  that  he  was,  in  the  fu- 
"  ture  time,  to  build  his  church  upon  a  foundation  dif- 
'^  ferent  from  that  on  which  the  Jewish  commonwealth 
^'  was  built."{m) 

I  take  it  for  granted,  that  by  Jewish  commonwealth 
in  this  last  declaration,  he  means  the  Jewish  church  of 
which  he  spoke  in  the  former  passage ;  and  the  amount 
of  this  argument  is,  that  when  Christ  says,  '^  1  will 
^'  build^^^  he  means  not  that  he  will  repair  an  old  ruin, 
such  as  the  Jewish  church,  but  that  immediately  after 
his  death  and  resurrection,  he  will  commence  a  building 
which  shall  be  entirely  new,  and  entirely  different  from 
the  Jewish  church,  both  as  to  its  foundation  and  its  su- 
perstructure. And  these  things  he  thinks  so  evidently 
taught  by  this  one  single  Greek  word,  rendered  ''  I  will 
**  build,"  that  they  must  be  obvious  to  ^^  babes  and  suck- 
lings," and  that  this  one  word  is  sufficient  to  subvert  my 
proposition  concerning  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  societies,  "  if  there  were  no  other  proof'  at 
alt. 

(m)  Spui\  Deb.  with  mc,  pp,  209.  228. 


(      163     ) 

It  sometimes  happens  that  bahes  and  sucklings  under- 
stand a  word  in  one  way,  and  men  of  learning  understand 
it  in  another  way.  My  Opponent  thinks  it  perfectly 
plain  that  to  build  never  means  to  rebuild  or  repair,  but 
Dr.  Gill^  who  was  no  babe,  but  the  greatest  giant,  in  the 
languages,  that  the  Baptist  church  ever  boasted,  thought 
otherwise,  and  supported  his  opinion  by  infallible  evi- 
dence. The  Scriptures  say  that  the  sons  of  Elpaal 
^^  built  Ono  and  Lod,  with  the  towns  thereof. '^(w)  Dr. 
Gill  agrees  with  the  Talmudists  in  saying  that  "  Elpaal 
^^  came  and  rebuilt  them.''  The  Scriptures  say  that 
Joth^m  ^'  built  the  higher  gate  of  the  house  of  the 
^^  Lord."(o)  Dr.  Gill  believes  that  this,  like  the  rest  of 
the  gates,  was  originally  ^^  built  by  Solomon  ;"  but  that 
Jotham  ^^  repaired  and  beautified,  or  added  something 
^^  to  it.''  Yes,  the  Dr.  actually  makes  out  that  Jotham's 
building  the  gate,  was  only  repairing  it.  After  the  de- 
struction of  the  first  temple,  it  is  written,  ^*  Thus  saith 
Cyrus,  King  of  Persia,  The  Lord  God  of  heaven  hath 
^'  given  me  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  ;  and  he  hath 
'^  charged  me  to  build  him  an  house  at  Jerusalem,  which 
^^  is  in  Judah."(j&)  Dr.  Gill  says  that  Isaiah's  prophecy, 
Cyrus  '^  had  seen  and  read,  and  believed  it  to  be  a 
^'  charge  upon  him,  and  a  command  unto  him  to  rebuild 
^^  the  temple  at  Jerusalem."  Thus,  to  build  was,  in  his 
opinion,  to  rebuild.  Concerning  a  greater  than  Cyrus, 
Isaiah  says,  ^^  He  shall  build  my  City."(^)  Dr.  Gill  ap- 
plies this  to  ^^  Christ,  the  builder  of  the  church,  often 
compared  to  a  city ;''  and  then  refers  to  my  Opponent's 

(n)  1  Chron.  viii.  12.  (o)  2  Kgs.  xv.  35. 

ifi)  Ear.  i.  2.  (y)  isa.  xlv.  U. 


(     164     ) 

text,  ^^  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church/^  "By  the 
''  church  is  meant/'  says  Gill,  on  this  text,  "the  elect  of 
'^  God,  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  First-born, 
^^  whose  names  are  written  in  heaven. '^  When  the  Psalm- 
ist says,  "The  Lord  shall  build  up  Zion,"W  it  does  not 
throw  Dr.  Gill  into  a  rhapsody  about  future  tenses,  and 
the  folly  of  identifying  Zion  with  the  true  church,  and 
of  confounding  the  building  of  a  new  house  with  the  re- 
building of  one  that  is  fallen  down.  He  tells  us  plainly 
that,  in  this  text,  Zion  is  "  the  church  of  God,  fallen 
'^  down,  and  in  a  ruinous  condition  ;"  and  that  this  pro- 
mise to  ''  build  up  Zion'^  is  fulfilled  "  in  rebuilding  his 
^'  church. '^  The  same  explanation  he  makes  of  that  pas- 
sage which  says,  '^  The  Lord  doth  build  up  Jerusalem  : 
"  he  gathereth  together  the  outcasts  of  Israel. "(5)  Al- 
though there  is  a  certain  sort  of  "babes  and  sucklings'' 
who  cannot  abide  the  thought  of  building  decayed 
places,  yet  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  poetical 
parallelisms  of  the  prophets,  will  admit  that  raising  up 
decayed  places,  is  sometimes  exegetical  of  building  ;  as 
when  God  says  "  to  the  cities  of  Judah,  Ye  shall  be  built, 
"  and  I  will  raise  up  the  decayed  places  thereof."(/) 
Dr.  Gill  believes  that  Judah  and  all  the  adjacent  country 
were  to  be  "  in  a  ruinous  condition,"  and  that  then  they 
"  should  be  rebuilt,  and  restored  to  a  flourishing  state 
"  again."  To  the  same  amount  he  explains  the  follow- 
ing text;  "And  they  shall  build  the  old  wastes,  they 
"'  shall  raise  up  the  former  desolations,  and  they  shall 
^<  repair  the  waste  cities,  the  desolations  of  many  gcne- 

(r)  Fsalm  cii.  16.         (s)  Psalm  cxlvii.  2.  (0  Isa.  xliv.  26. 


1 


(     165     ) 

^^  ratlons/'(w)  In  the  prospect  of  the  Christian  sPTa, 
when  the  Gentiles  were  to  he  engrafted  on  the  Ahraha- 
mic  stock,  Isaiah  says  to  the  Jews,  ^'  The  sons  of  stran- 
^*  gers  shall  build  up  thy  walls.'^(z^)  But  in  the  follow- 
ing passage  a  person  who  builds  is  again  expressly  called 
a  repairer  in  our  translation,  and  in  this  it  most  exactly 
agrees  with  the  translations  of  Castallio,  Tremellius,  and 
Diodat,  and  with  the  commentary  of  Dr.  Gill.  "  And 
'^  they  that  shall  be  of  thee  shall  build  the  old  waste 
"  places:  thou  shalt  raise  up  the  foundations  of  many  ge- 
"  nerations  ;  and  thou  shalt  be  called,  The  repairer  of 
''  the  breach,  The  restorer  of  paths  to  dwell  in.^'  Dr. 
Gill  says,  ''  As  the  cities  in  Israel  and  Judea,  which  had 
^'  been  long  laid  waste  by  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans, 
''  were  rebuilt  by  those  of  the  Jewish  nation,  who  re- 
''  turned  from  the  captivity  of  Babylon,  to  which  there 
"  is  at  least  an  allusion ;  and  as  the  church  of  God,  the 
''  tabernacle  of  David,  which  was  fallen  down,  and  had 
"  lain  long  in  ruins,  through  corruptions  in  doctrine  and 
"  worship,  to  the  times  of  Christ,  when  the  Apostles, 
^'  who  were  of  the  Jews,  those  wise  master-builders, 
"  were  instruments  of  raising  it  up  again,  and  repairing 
*'  its  ruins,  so,  in  the  latter-day,  the  ivaste  places  of  the 
"  world,  as  the  words  may  be  rendered,  shall  be  built 
"  by  a  set  of  men,  that  shall  be  of  the  church  of  God, 
"  who  shall  be  instruments  in  his  hand  of  converting 
''  many  souls,  and  so  of  peopling  it  with  Christians ;  such 
^'  places  as  before  were  desolate,  where  before  there 
^'  was  no  preaching  of  the  word,  no  administration  of  or- 

.   (w)  Isa.  Ixi.  4.  {v)  Isa.  Ix.  10. 


(     166     ) 

^'  dinances,  nor  any  Gospel  churches.'^  In  this  extract, 
this  great  Baptist  commentator  calls  the  tabernacle  of 
David  the  church  of  God.  He  represents  it  as  fallen 
down  and  lying  long  in  ruins,  until  the  times  of  Christ, 
the  Divine  Architect,  who  appointed  twelve  Apostolical 
builders,  and  made  them  "  instruments  of  raising  it  up 
^'  again^  and  repairing  its  ruins.''  Thus,  '^  the  stone 
^'  which  the  builders  disallowed,  the  same  is  made  the 
'^  head  of  the  corner,'' (zi^)  or,  as  Dr.  Gill  says,(^)  '^  the 
*^  chief  corner-stone,  that  adorns,  strengthens,  knits,  and 
''  keeps  together,  the  whole  building ;  in  which  Jews 
'^  and  Gentiles,  saints  in  all  ages  and  places,  even  all  the 
^'  elect  of  God  are  united  together."  He  says,  "By  the 
^'  builders  are  meant  the  rulers  of  the  Jews,  both  civil 
^'  and  ecclesiastical,  and  especially  the  latter,  the 
''  Scribes,  Pharisees,  and  chief  priests,  who  set  up  for 
"  builders  of  the  church  of  God,  but  were  miserable 
^'  ones."  "  These  disallowed  of  Christ  in  the  build- 
fi  ing;"  "but  to  their  great  mortification,  he  is  not  only 
^'  laid  and  retained  as  the  foundation  and  corner-stone, 
^^  but  made  the  head  of  the  building."  For  this  reason, 
Paul,  in  allusion  to  the  temple  and  Jerusalem,  the 
house  and  city  of  God,  says  to  the  Ephesian  Christians, 
^'  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  foreign- 
"  ers,  but  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the 
''  household  of  God,  and  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
^^  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
"  the  chief  corner- stone. "(y)     Dr.  Gill  says  that  these 

(v>)  1  Pet.  ii.  7. 

(c)  (iillon  Actsiv.  11.  (comp.  alsf>  1  IVt,  ii.  vi.) 

{y)  Eph.  ii,  ly.  20, 


(      167      ) 

are  ^^The  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the 
"  apostles  of  the  New,  who  agree  in  laying  ministerial- 
^^  ly  the  one  and  only  foundation,  Jesus  Christ.'^  Now 
let  any  reasonable  person  say  whether  the  words,  ^^  upon 
^^  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,'^  are  alone  sufficient 
to  refute  my  proposition  concerning  the  ecclesiastical 
identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies. 

VI.  Kingdom.  This  figure  is  used  by  our  Saviour, 
in  the  same  discourse,  and  in  immediate  connexion  with 
what  he  said  about  the  transfer  of  the  same  vineyard 
from  one  set  of  husbandmen  to  another.  After  speaking 
of  the  unworthiness  of  the  Jewish  husbandmen,  in  re- 
jecting the  Son  of  their  Lord ;  and  the  wicked  folly  of 
the  Jewish  builders  in  rejecting  the  chief  corner-stone, 
he  adds,  "  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  the  kingdom  of 
^'  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a  na- 
'^  tion  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.''(^)  Here  is 
only  one  kingdom  ;  yet  it  embraces  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  administrations.  So  in  the  following ;  ^'  And 
''  I  say  unto  you  that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and 
^^  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham  and  Isaac  and 
"  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  the  children 
"  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out  into  utter  dark- 
"  ness.'^(A)  This  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  the  Gentiles 
shall  take  their  seat  in  the  Abrahamic  church,  while  the 
Jews  are  cast  out  of  it.  That  this  cannot  mean  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  above,  is  evident,  because  no  man  shall 
be  cast  out  of  that  kingdom,  after  he  has  once  obtained 
admittance.       Dr.  Gill  says  that  the  children  of  the 

(iO  Matt.  xxi.  4 J.  (A)  Matt.  viii.  11.  12. 


(     168     ) 

kingdom  are  ^'  The  Jews,  who  were  subjects  of  the 

'^  kingdom,  and  commonwealth   of  Israel,   from  which 

"  the  Gentiles  were  aliens ;  and  who  were  also  in  the 

"  church  of  God,  which  is  his  kingdom  on  earth  ;  and 

^'  besides,  had  the  promise  of  the  gospel  dispensation, 

^'  sometimes  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  by  them, 

"  often,  the  world  to  come  ;  and  were,  by  their  own 

^'  profession,  and  in  their  own  apprehension  and  expec- 

^^  tation,  children  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  glory.'** 

The  kingdom  of  heaven  is,  therefore,  the  Abrahamic 

church,  the  church  of  God.     The  Jews  were  once  its 

children,  but  they  are  now  cast  out.     The  Gentiles  were 

once  aliens,  but  are  now  subjects,  not  in  a  new  kingdom, 

nor  in  one  which  commenced  even  with  Moses  at  Mount 

Sinai ;  but  in  that  kingdom  in  which  Abraham,  Isaac 

and  Jacob  were. 

My  opponent's  second  argument  against  the  sameness 
of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies,  is  founded  upon 
the  preaching  of  our  Saviour  and  his  Precursor  and  in- 
spired servants,  ^^  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
^^  is  at  hand.''(^;)  He  says,  "  This  is  proof  positive  that, 
^'  at  this  time,  the  new  kingdom  was  not  yet  set  up, 
^^  and  that  the  old  Jewish  was  yet  standing.''  In  this 
place  our  translation  uses,  the  word  kingdom  ;  my  Op- 
ponent's paraphrase  calls  it  neW  kingdom;  his  New 
Testament  follows  Dr.  Campbell  in  calling  it  the  reign 
of  heaven  ;  but  Dr.  Campbell's  preliminary  dissertation 
says  that  the  word  sometimes  means  admiyiistration  ; 
and  Dr.  Gill  here  explains  it  dispensation.     That  there 

{v)  Matt.  hi.  2.  and  other  places  quoted  by  my  Opponent,  in  hisbpun 
Dtb.  after  his  own  fabliion,  in  page  Vj7. 


(     169     ) 

is  a  new  administration  I  have  never  denied  ;  that  there 
is  any  thing  more,  my  Opponent  is  the  only  one  to  assert; 
and  he  asserts  it,  not  in  translating,  but  in  debating. 

His  third  argument  is  founded  upon  our  Saviour's 
declaration,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until 
"  John  :  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached, 
'^  and  every  man  presseth  into  iV\w)  Here  also  Gill 
justly  calls  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion :  and  so  he  does  the  same  word  in  the  text  on  which 
my  Opponent  feebly  rests  his  eighth  argument ;  ^^  My 
^'  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 'V^)  This  passage  he 
uses  in  such  a  way  as  strongly  to  infer  that  the  Waldenses, 
whom  he  claims  as  good  Baptists,  could  not  be  Chris- 
tians, because  they  sometimes  bravely  defended  them- 
selves from  their  oppressors.  But  this  was  my  Oppo- 
nent's way  of  paying  court  to  the  Quakers. 

But  his  first  argument  deserves  more  notice.  It  is  as 
follows,  viz.  ^^  My  first  argument,  for  aflirming  that 
^'  the  Christian  religion  and  Christian  church  differ  es- 
'^  sentially  from  the  Jewish,  is  drawn  from  Dan.  ii.  44. 
^^  45.     ^  And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of 

*  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroy- 
^  ed,  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to  other  people, 
^  and  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these  king- 

*  doms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever.  The  great  God  has 
^  made  known  to  the  king  what  shall  come  to  pass  here- 
^  after.'  ''(i)  To  make  this  passage  prove  that  there  is 
an  essential  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 


(w)  L.  xvi.  16.  Spur.  Deb.  p.   197. 
(jc)  John  xviii.  36.  Spur  Deb.  p.  229. 
(?)  Spur.  Deb.  with  me,  pp.  195.  196. 


(     170     ) 

lament  kingdoms,  he  claims  our  particular  attention  to 
three  things.  One  is,  that  the  prophecy  was  written  by 
Daniel,  centuries  before  the  Jews  were  cut  off.  I  say, 
yea.  Another  is  that  it  was  to  be  fulfilled  ^Oiereafter," 
that  is,  when  Christ  came.  Very  well.  The  third  is, 
that  at  that  time  God  should  set  up  a  kingdom.  No  ob- 
jection. But  there  is  an  objection  to  what  he  afterwards 
says,  when  he  endeavours  to  persuade  you  that  setting 
up  a  kingdom  is  a  creation  or  original  constitution  of  a 
kingdom,  as  in  the  following  words,  viz.  "  This  king- 
'^  dom  of  God  which  he  would  set  up  or  constitute, 
^'  under  the  reign  of  his  Son,  was  not  to  commence  until 
'^  the  last  days  of  the  Jewish  kingdom — Now  to  consti- 
^'  tute  a  kingdom,  and  to  continue  one  already  in  exis- 
''  tence,  are  as  different  as  the  building  of  a  new  house, 
''  is  from  the  repairing  or  keeping  up  of  a  house  already 
''  built.  To  set  up  a  house,  or  to  set  up  a  kingdom,  is 
^'  essentially  different  from  either  reforming  an  old  one, 
*^  or  constituting  it  under  new  regulations." 

We  have  already  shewn  that  the  Bible  and  the  best 
Baptist  authority  consider  the  word  build  as  often  equiv- 
alent to  rebuild  or  repair.  And  if,  as  my  Opponent  in- 
timates, the  expression,  set  up,  is  tantamount  to  build, 
then  to  set  up  a  kingdom  may  mean  to  reinstate  or  re- 
establish ;  and  thus  the  whole  of  his  argument,  which 
rests  entirely  upon  a  perversion  of  this  single  word, 
must  fall  to  the  ground.  In  order  to  make  this  apparent, 
1  would  inquire,  What  do  you  understand  from  another 
passage  of  this  same  prophet  Daniel,  where  we  have  the 
same  original  word  with  the  same  rendering  ?  Concern- 
ing Nebuchadnezzar's  golden  image,  we  are  told  "  that 


(  171  ) 

he  set  it  up  in  the  plain  of  Dura.''  Does  this  mean 
that  he  created  or  made  or  constituted  it  in  the  plain  of 
Dura  ?  By  no  means;  for  the  manufacture  of  it  was  ex- 
pressly mentioned  as  having  taken  place  before  its  erec- 
tion ;(y)  as  the  existence  of  God's  ecclesiastical  king- 
dom is  often  mentioned  before  its  resuscitation  by  the 
Messiah.  Although  the  Tabernacle  was  originally  con- 
stituted immediately  after  the  departure  from  Egypt, (;^) 
yet  it  was  set  up  at  many  subsequent  periods. (/)  Indeed 
it  was  a  law  of  Moses,  that  "  when  the  Tabernacle  set- 
^'  teth  forward,  theLevites  shall  take  it  down  ;  and  when 
^^  the  tabernacle  is  to  be  pitched,  the  Levites  shall  set  it 
'^  up,^\7n)  The  same  word  is  used  by  Solomon  to  denote 
such  an  act  as  lifting  up  a  person  who  ''  falls  from  his 
^^  horse,  or  out  of  his  carriage,  or  into  a  ditch. ''(??)  In 
the  use  of  the  same  original  word,  Saul  complains  that 
Jonathan  had  set  up  or  stirred  up  David  against  him.(o) 
Did  Saul  suppose  that  Jonathan  had  just  then  given  to 
David  his  original  constitution  ?  Our  Bible  renders  the 
same  word  raise  in  application  to  him  who  is  the  Root 
and  Offspring  of  David.  '■'  Behold  the  days  come, 
^'  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  right- 
^^  eous  Branch,  and  a  King  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and 
''  shall  execute  judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth. ''(p) 
God  also  says,  "  I  will  raise  them  up  a  Prophet  from 
''  among  their  brethren,  like  unto  thee,  and  I  will  put 
^^  my  words  in  his  mouth,  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them 
^'  all  that  I  shall  command  \i\m,^\q)     Had  the  Messiah 

{j  )  Dan.  iii.  1.        {k)  Ex.  xl.  17.        (/)  Num.  yii.  1.  ix.  15.  x.  21, 

hn)  Num.  i.  51.        (w)  See  Gill  on  Eccl,  iv.  10. 

(o)  iSam.  xxii.  8.     (/z )  Jer.  xxiii,  5.     {q^)  Deut/xviii,  18. 


(     172     ) 

no  constitution  before  his  incarnation  ?  or  rather,  does 
he  not  himself  say,  ^^I  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from 
"  the  beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was."{r)  The  name 
of  this  glorious  personage  is  an  answer  to  the  question  of 
Amos,  "  Who  will  raise  up  or  lift  up,  or  set  up  Jacob?''(5) 
The  same  word  is  rendered, e5?a6/z5 A,  in  a  promise  record- 
ed by  Moses.  Long  after  Jacob  had  been  constituted 
a  holy  people,  Moses  said  "  The  Lord  shall  establish 
''  thee  an  holy  people  unto  himself.''(/)  Dr.  Gill  un- 
derstands it  that  he  "  should  continue  them  as  such.'^ 
Exactly  to  the  same  purport  does  he  explain  the  pro- 
phecy of  Daniel  quoted  by  my  Opponent.  "  And  in 
''  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up 
''  a  kingdom.^'  The  Doctor  says,  "  which  kingdom  is 
^'  no  other  than  his  church  on  earth,  where  he  reigns, 
"  has  his  throne  ;  holds  forth  his  sceptre,  gives  out  his 
"  laws,  and  is  obeyed  :  and,  though  this  is  already  in  the 
^'  world,  yet  it  is  not  so  visible,  stable,  and  glorious,  as 
^'  it  will  be  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  monarchy,  which 
^'  is  meant  by  its  being  set  up,  confirmed,  and  establish- 
'^  cJ."  That  this  kingdom  was  already  in  the  world,  be- 
fore the  New  Testament  administration,  is  as  evident  as 
that  the  kingdom  of  Israel  had  an  existence  before  it  was 
set  up  or  established  in  David's  hands,  according  to 
the  words  of  Jonathaii,  "  the  kingdom  of  Israel  shall 
''  be  established  m  thine  hand."(iO 


[r)  Prov.  viii.  23,  where,  however,  the  original  has  a  different  word. 

[h)  Amos  vii.  2.  Gill  tells  us  that  it  is  rendered  •*  quis  suscitabit  Jaha- 
cob?"  by  Pagninus,  Montanus,  andVatablus.  To  these  he  mii^ht  have 
added  Calasio  and  the  Vulgate.  In  accordance  with  tliese,  Castallio  says, 
♦*  quis  Jacobeum  eriget  ?"  and  the  Septuagint,  t'ij  avaitisn  tov  laxw/J  ; 

(/)  Dcut.  xxviii.  9.  (")  ^  ^*^"™'  ^^^'^'  ^0. 


I 


(     173     ) 

It  appears,  th«n,  after  a  patient  examination,  that 
those  arguments  upon  which  my  Opponent  relies,  are 
perversions  of  scripture  ;  and  mere  fancies  of  his  own  ; 
in  which  he  is  as  much  opposed  to  the  views  of  the  Co- 
lossus of  Baptist  theology,  as  he  is  to  the  view  which  I 
defend.  Contrast  this  with  the  evidence  by  which  our 
opinion  is  supported.  The  scriptures  do  not  say  that 
one  ecclesiastical  kingdom  shall  be  destroyed  and  ano- 
ther created ;  but  they  assure  us  that  the  same  kingdom 
of  God  shall  be  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given  to  the 
Gentiles.  Concerning  the  same  kingdom  of  heaven  it  is 
said  that  the  Jews  shall  be  cast  out,  while  the  Gentiles 
shall  enter  and  sit  down :  neither  are  they  restricted  to 
the  honor  of  sitting  with  Moses  and  Aaron  and  Joshua, 
but  they  are  admitted  to  a  seat  with  Abraham  and  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  in  this  ecclesiastical  kingdom,  or  Abrahamic 
church. 

VII.  Commonwealth.  Paul  tells  the  Ephesians  that 
they  were  once  ^^  Aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
"  Israel ;''  but  he  soon  informs  them  that  they  "  are  no 
^'  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens 
"  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God.^^(^) 
Dr.  Gill  tells  us  that  a  stranger  was  the  name  "  by 
^'  which  the  Jews  called  the  Gentiles  ;''  that  the  Gen- 
tiles were  originally  ''foreigners  in  the  commonwealth 
''  of  Israel,  in  the  church  of  God  f^  ''  being  aliens 
''  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  both  from  their 
^'  civil  and  cAwrcA-state."  That  the  city  in  which  they 
become  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints  is  "  the  church 

(ty)  Eph.  ii.  12.  19. 


(     174     ) 

^^  below,  which  is  the  city  of  God,''  and  "  heaven 
'^  above,  which  is  a  city  of  God's  preparation  and 
"  building  also."  In  this  most  valuable  Baptist  Com- 
mentary, we  learn  that  the  commonwealth  of  Israel 
means  the  church  of  God,  to  which  the  Jews  once  be- 
longed, and  from  which  the  Gentiles  were  once  stran- 
gers and  foreigners :  but  the  New  Testament  adminis- 
tration has  naturalized  them  in  the  city  of  God,  which  is 
his  church  below,  even  that  church  of  w  hich  the  Jews 
were  once  members. 

VIII.  Man.  "  But  now,  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  [Gen- 
^'  tiles]  who  sometimes  were  far  off,  are  made  nigh 
''  [even  as  the  Jews,]  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he 
''  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  [Jews  and  Gentiles] 
^^  ontj  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
''  tion  between  us;  having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the 
^'  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments  contained  in 
''  ordinances  ;  for  to  make  in  himself  of  twain  one  new 
^'  man,  so  making  peacc^Cz) 

IX.  Body.  "  And  that  he  might  reconcile  both  [Jews 
f  ^  and  Gentiles]  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  hav- 
^'  ing  slain  the  enmity  thereby."(a)  The  connexion  of 
this  and  the  last  particular,  and  the  7th  also,  shews  that 
man  and  body,  as  well  as  commonwealth,  relate  to  the 
visible  church.  It  is  not  said  that  they  relate  to  that 
exclusively  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  that  they  should. 

X.  Brethren.  In  Ps.  xxii.  22,  Christ  calls  the 
Jewish  church  his  brethren:  in  Hebr.  ii.  11.  12,  this 
is  quoted  as  intended  for  Christians.     They  must  there- 

(r)  Eph.  ii.  13—15.  («)  Kph.  ii.  16. 


(     175     ) 

fore  be  one  in  some  sense.  The  connexion  shews  that 
they  are  ecclesiastically  one. 

XL  Bride.  Jeremiah  says  that  Jehovah  is  married 
to  the  Jewish  church  ;(6)  John  tells  us  that  the  Chris- 
tian church  is  the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife  ;(c)  yet  God 
says^  by  the  pen  of  Solomon,  "  My  dove,  my  undefiled, 
"  is  but  one  ;  she  is  the  only  one  of  her  mother  ;  she  is 
^'  the  choice  one  of  her  that  bare  hovJ^d)  It  seems  then 
that  Christ  has  but  one  bride  or  church  ;  but  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  societies  are  both  that  church ;  therefore 
they  are  one  church.  That  this  passage  relates  to  eccle- 
siastical unity,  Gill  himself  is  inclined  to  believe. 

XIL  Children.  The  scriptures  represent  Jewish 
and  Gentile  professors  as  the  children  of  the  church. 
When  the  Jews  are  cut  off,  the  church  is  represented 
as  a  widow  :  but  she  is  comforted  by  the  accession  of 
Gentile  children.  "  The  [Gentile]  children  which  thou 
"  shalt  have,  after  thou  hast  lost  the  other  [the  Jewish], 
^'  shall  say  again  in  thine  ears,  the  place  is  too  strait  for 
^'  me:  give  place  to  me  that  I  may  dwell.  Then  shalt 
"  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  Who  hath  begotten  me  these, 
'^  seeing  I  have  lost  my  children,  and  am  desolate,  a  cap- 
''  tive,  and  removing  to  and  fro  ?  and  who  hath  brought 
"  up  these  ?  Behold  I  was  left  alone  ;  these,  where  had 
"  they  been?  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  behold,  I  will 
^'  lift  up  mine  hand  to  the  Gentiles,  and  set  up  my  stand- 
^'  ard  to  the  people  :  and  they  shall  bring  thy  sons  in 
^'  their  arms,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be  carried  upon 
^*  their  shoulders."(e)     Some  who  admit  the  identity  of 

(A)  Jer.  iii.  14.  (c)  Rev.  xxi.  9. 

id)  Cant,  vi.  9,  (e)  Isa.  xlix,  20— -22, 


(     176     ) 

the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies  are  inclined  to  doubt 
that  the  former  is  intended  by  either  of  these  classes  of 
children.  Their  mistake  ought  to  be  corrected  by  the 
preceding  context,  in  which  "  Zion  said,  The  Lord 
''  hath  forsaken  me,  and  my  Lord  hath  forgotten  me/' 
Messiah  says,  ^^  Though  Israel  be  not  gathered,  yet 
''  shall  I  be  glorious  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  and  my 
^^  God  shall  be  my  strength."  The  Father  says  to  him, 
^'  It  is  a  light  thing  that  thou  shouldest  be  my  servant, 
^'  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  restore  the  pre- 
''  served  of  Israel;  I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the 
^^  Gentiles,  that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation  unto  the 
'^  end  of  the  earth. "(/)  I  do  not  deny  that  the  ultimate 
accomplishment  of  these  prophecies  is  yet  future :  yet 
that  their  primary  fulfilment  was  in  the  Apostolic  day, 
is  too  plain  to  admit  of  a  doubt.  Can  any  one  suppose 
that  Zion,  Jacob,  and  Israel,  have  no  reference  to  the 
Jews,  even  when  they  are  expressly  contrasted  with  the 
Gentiles  ?  Here,  then,  are  two  distinct  sets  of  ecclesi- 
astical children,  sent  before  and  after  the  afiliction  of 
their  mother;  just  as  Job  had  two  sets  of  children  sent 
before  and  after  his  affliction.  These  Patriarchal  de- 
cades  form  a  good  illustration  of  the  subject,  and  were 
probably  intended  to  do  so ;  and  this  opinion  may  have 
weighed  with  the  Jews  in  con^dering  the  number  ten^as 
forming  a  congregation.  But  Job's  two  congregations 
had  only  one  father,  and  thus  formed  one  family :  so  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles  had  only  one  ecclesiastical  mother ; 
that  is,  they  were  one  church. 

(/)  Isa.  xlix.  14.  5.  6. 


(      177     ) 


If  not  very  much  mistaken,  the  evidence  which  has 
been  laid  before  you,  goes  clearly  to  the  establishment 
of  the  point  in  question ;  that  is,  that  the  Scriptures  give 
to  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Societies  the  same  names,  in 
such  a  manner  as  plainly  to  prove  that  they  are  the  same 
church.  This  evidence  my  Opponent  endeavours  to 
rebut  in  the  following  words,  viz.  ''  Mr.  M^Calla  (for 
^^  we  must  now  look  back  a  little,)  yesterday  entertained. 
^'  you  for  a  long  time,  by  telling  you  of  the  different 
^'  names  applied  to  the  Jewish  society,  and  also  to  the 
*'  Christian,  as  expressive  of  their  identity  ;  as  their  be- 
^^  ing  equally  called  the  house,  bride,  people,  vineyard, 
''  kingdom,  <S:c.  of  God.  To  all  this  argument  we  would 
^'  m  the  mass  reply.  That  suppose  I  might  be  so  fortu- 
'^  nate  as  to  have  a  house  in  Washington  and  one  in  Lex- 
*^  ington,  each  of  them  might  with  the  greatest  propriety 
''  be  called  my  house ;  the  same  might  be  said  concerning 
^^  barn,  vineyard,  floor,  kingdom,  &c.  But  who  would 
^^  argue  thence  that  because  they  were  both  called  my 
^^  house,  vineyard,  barn,  &c.  they  were  one  and  the  same 
^^  house,  vineyard,  barn,  &c.  This  would  shock  common 
^'  sense.  But  it  may  be  objected  that  the  Lord,  meta- 
*^  phorically  speaking,  had  but  one  bride,  that  he  could 
''  not  be  said  to  have  had  two.  To  such  an  objection  I 
"  would  reply  by  saying  that  he  always  had  but  one 
^'  bride,  one  house,  one  vineyard,  one  kingdom,  &c.  at 
"  one  time  ;  but  that  Israel  having  broken  the  marriage 
"  covenant  was  divorced,  and  ceased  to  be  his  married 
Z 


(     178     ) 

^^  wife,  in  the  metaphorical  style ;  and  that  in  their  stead 
^^  another  bride  was  chosen,  another  house  was  built, 
^^  another  vineyard  was  planted,  another  kingdom  was 
^'  constituted,  to  which  the  same  figurative  names  were 
''  applied.  And  after  all  that  Mr.  M^Calla  has  said  on 
^'  this  subject,  it  amounts  to  precisely  the  same  thing  ; 
^'  for  he  will  not  say,  with  all  his  fortitude  and  zeal,  he 
^'  cannot  say,  that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies  are 
''  identically  the  very  same — no,  he  will  say,  he  has 
^'  said,  they  are  under  diiTerent  dispensations,  and  this 
'^  is  saying  a  great  deal,  if  he  is  aware  of  the  import  of 
^'  it,  for,  in  fact,  a  different  dispensation  is  tantamount  to 
^'  a  different  covenant.  At  all  events,  he  makes  the  two 
^^  societies  different  in  some  respects,  and  thus  esta- 
^^  Wishes  my  views  and  saps  the  very  basis  of  his  own 
"  system.'^(^) 

The  question  whether  the  two  societies  are  under  dif- 
ferent covenants  or  not,  will,  with  divine  permission, 
soon  be  tried.  It  is  true  that  a  difference  of  administra- 
tion, and  a  difference  in  many  other  respects,  has  been 
admitted.  I  never  undertook  to  prove  their  per- 
sonal or  political,  their  chronological  or  geographical 
identity.  In  my  explication  of  the  2d  proposition^  I 
expressly  declared  that  ^^it  says  nothing  more  than  that 
''  they  are  the  same  chwch^  and  nothing  more  than  ec- 
''  clesiastical  identity  is  intended.''  While  this  can  be 
shewn,  they  may  differ  in  ten  thousand  respects,  without 
sapping  the  foundation  of  my  system.  But  if  I  mistake 
not,  my  Opponent  considers  his  own  system  not  perfect- 

(iO  spurious  Debate  with  me,  p.  186. 


(     179     )■ 

ly  tenable,  as  he  has  changed  it  to  meet  the  present 
emergency.  He  would  now  make  you  believe  that  it 
"  amounts  to  precisely  the  same  thing"  with  what  I 
have  said ;  except  that  instead  of  the  Jews  and  Christians 
being  one  and  the  same  church,  they  are  two  essentially 
different  churches,  but  one  has  come  in  the  stead  of  the 
other.  He  says  that  the  great  Head  of  the  church  "  al- 
'^  ways  had  but  one  bride"  "  at  one  time  ;  but  that  Is- 
"  rael  having  broken  the  marriage  covenant,  was  di- 
vorced," ''  and  that  in  their  stead  another  bride  was 
chosen,  another  house  was  built,"  &c.  Has  he  not  at 
last  admitted  the  truth  of  my  first  proposition  that  the 
Jews  were  once  the  visible  church  of  God?  But  where 
does  he  find  evidence  that  this  church  was  destroyed, 
and  a  perfectly  new  one  instituted  ?  How  does  he  prove 
what  he  has  said  on  this  subject,  that  "  another  vineyard 
was  planted,  another  kingdom  was  constituted,"  "  ano- 
ther bride  was  chosen,  another  house  was  built?"  What 
Scripture  has  he  quoted  to  shew  that  the  Jewish  church 
was  as  different  from  the  Christian,  as  a  house  in  Wash- 
ington is  different  from  a  housfe  in  Lexington  ?  It  is  evi- 
dent that  nothing  but  the  sad  necessities  of  the  times 
have  driven  him  to  this  flimsy  subterfuge.  According 
to  this  theory,  can  we  believe  that  the  Messiah  shall 
reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever?  The  house  over 
which  he  now  reigns  must  be  essentially  different,  in  all 
respects,  from  the  house  of  Jacob.  It  must  also  be  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  only,  and  not 
''  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,"  as 
Paul  has  declared.  We  must  moreover  give  up  tiie  doc- 
trine of  John  the  Baptist,  that  the  Messiah 


roughly  purge  his  floor/'  My  Opponent  teaches  that 
he  does  not  cleanse  his  floor,  but  that  he  destroys  it,  and 
lays  a  new  one,  as  difierent  from  it,  as  two  floors  in 
Washington  and  Lexington  are  diff*erent  from  each 
other.  It  may  be  that  some  Baptist  farmer  in  this  as- 
sembly is  sufficiently  prejudiced  to  believe  this  exposi- 
tion. It  may  be  also  that  when  you  came  to  this  debate 
you  left  to  your  servants  a  barn  floor  full  of  wheat,  with 
directions  to  clean  it  well  before  your  return.  What 
would  you  think  if  they  should  set  Are  to  the  barn  in- 
stead of  to  the  chaff?  Would  you  not  say  that  there  was 
a  great  difference  between  cleaning  a  floor  and  destroy- 
ing it  ?  If  some  tidy  housewives  were  to  destroy  their 
floors  as  often  as  they  clean  them,  they  would  keep  the 
carpenters  busy.  Suppose  that  you  have  let  out  your 
farm  or  vineyard  to  tenants  who  will  pay  no  rent.  You 
send  officers  to  eject  them.  Instead  of  this,  these  officers 
destroy  the  vineyard  and  leave  you  to  plant  a  new  one 
near  Lexington,  according  to  my  Opponent's  doctrine. 
Would  this  be  in  accordance  with  the  text  which  says, 
^'  He  will  destroy  the  husbandmen,  and  will  give  the 
vineyard  unto  others  ?"  My  Opponent  teaches  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  not  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given 
to  the  Gentiles ;  but  that  the  Jewish  kingdom  was  des- 
stroyed,  and  ''  another  kingdom  was  constituted''  for  the 
Gentiles.  Compare  this  with  the  words  of  the  King. 
^'  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be 
taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof."  According  to  my  Opponent's  theory, 
the  Head  of  the  church  '*  had  but  one  bride"  '^  at  one 
time ;"  but  difl'erent  brides  at  different  times.  So  the 
Jews  were  one  man  and  one  hoflij^  but  the  Christians  ana- 


(     181     ) 

ther  man  and  another  body  essentially  different.  But  the 
Spirit  says  that  this  bride  "  is  the  only  one  of  her  mo- 
ther:'^ and  concerning  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  it  declares 
that  Christ  hath  made  "  in  himself  of  twain  one  new 
^^  manf^  and  that  he  hath  reconciled  "  both  unto  God 
"  in  one  body.^'  When  they  are  called  children,  it  is 
not  said,  as  my  Opponent  would  have  it,  that  the  Jewish 
children  had  one  mother,  and  the  Gentile  children  had 
another  mother  essentially  different,  like  two  mothers  in 
Washington  and  Lexington ;  but  the  same  mother  who 
lost  the  Jewish  children  is  represented  as  obtaining  com- 
fort from  the  birth  of  her  Gentile  children.  You  do 
not  find  it  said,  that  the  Jews  were  one  olive-tree,  from 
which  certain  branches  were  broken  off,  and  the  Gen- 
tiles another  olive-tree,  into  which  other  branches  were 
engrafted  ;  but  the  Gentile  branches  are  engrafted  into 
the  same  olive-tree  from  which  the  Jewish  branches 
were  broken  off.  How  different  this  from  two  olive- 
trees  in  Washington  and  Lexington  ! 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  if  the  fact  that  the 
scriptures  call  the  Jewish  and  Christian  societies  the 
same  peculiar  treasure  and  priest-hood,  nation  and  peo- 
ple, the  same  ecclesiastical  tree  and  vineyard,  kingdom 
and  commonwealth,  the  same  foundation,  floor,  and  house, 
the  same  man  and  body,  brethren,  bride,  and  mother, 
and  if  an  express  declaration  of  unity,  as  in  several  in- 
stances just  quoted,  will  prove  them  to  be  the  same 
church,  then  their  ecclesiastical  identity  has  been 
proved. 


.      (     182     ) 

POINT  III. 

The  Jewish  and  Christian  societies  must  be  the  same 
church,  because  they  have  the  same  constitution,  the 
Mrahamic  covenant. 

On  this  subject,  my  Opponent  has  spoken  as  follows, 
viz.  ''  Mr.  M^Calla  has  asserted  that  the  covenant  or 
'^  constitution  of  both  churches  is  one  and  the  same  ; 
^'  that  this  covenant  is  the  Abrahamic,  and  that  this 
^'  Abrahamic  covenant  was  an  '  ecclesiastical  covenant.'^ 
''  Circuitous  and  intricate  are  the  paths  of  error.  What 
^'  a  labor,  what  a  toil  to  establish  infant-membership. 
^'  The  Rev.  Samuel  Rallston,  it  seems,  borrowed  this 
''  ecclesiastical  covenant  from  Dr.  John  Mason,  and 
^^  Mr.  M^Calla  appears  to  have  borrowed  it  from  Fa- 
^^  ther  Rallston.  What  a  valuable  acquisition!  How 
^'  much  more  are  we  indebted  to  philosophical  di- 
"  vines  for  their  discoveries,  than  to  the  Spirit  of 
'^  revelation  that  guided  the  tongues  and  the  pens  of  the 
^'  holy  Apostles !  The  old  and  the  new  covenant 
^^  were  the  'covenants  on  which  the  Apostles  wrote 
"  and  talked.  They,  poor,  simple,  and  unlettered  men, 
^^  never  used  such  phrases  as  the  covenant  of  works,  the 
''  covenant  of  grace,  the  ecclesiastic  covenant.  No,  it 
^'  was  reserved  to  the  age  of  reason,  to  unfold  the  cov- 
^'  enant  of  works  and  of  grace  ;  and,  to  the  last  centu- 
^'  ry,  together  with  the  urgent  demands  of  infant- 
^^  sprinkling,  are  we  indebted  for  this  last  discovery, 
^'  this  ecclesiastic  covenant.  But  where  this  covenant 
^'  may  be  found,  my  Antagonist  has  not  condescended 
^'  to  inform  us.     We  shall  then,  as  a  favour,  request  him 


(     183     ) 

^^  to  specify  where  this  covenant  may  be  found.  Is  it 
'^  in  the  12th,  15th,  or  17th  Chapter  of  Genesis?  Till 
''  then  we  must  merely  conjecture.  In  our  Appendix  to 
"  the  Debate  at  Mount  Pleasant,  we  were  somewhat 
''  particular  in  fixing  the  meaning  of  the  terra  covenant 
''  as  used  in  the  holy  scripture.  Mr.  M^Calla,  so 
^'  often  as  has  referred  to  that  Debate,  has  not  called  in 
"  question  the  facts  there  stated.  The  term  diatheke 
"  is  there  exhibited  as  signifying,  either  appointment^ 
"  constitution,  covenant,  or  testament,  and  it  is  there 
'^  proven  from  matter  of  fact,  that  promises  and  com^ 
"  mands  are  called  covenants.'^(A) 
Thus  far,  my  Baptist  Opponent.  I  confess  myself  attach- 
ed to  the  old-fashioned  technical  theology.  That  it  was 
the  fruit  of  much  labour  and  toil,  as  my  Opponent  has 
insinuated,  cannot  be  denied.  Our  Fathers  were  ad- 
dicted to  prayers  and  pains,  and,  at  the  same  time,  gifted 
with  piety  and  parts,  very  far  beyond  that  superficial  race 
of  apostates  which  have  learned  to  despise  their  attain- 
ments. Some  of  this  motley  brood  deny  that  there  is  a 
covenant  of  works  or  a  covenant  of  grace,  and  others 
deny  that  the  original  words  ever  signify  a  covenant  be- 
tween God  and  man  at  all,  and  say  that  our  Translatoi*s 
have  been  guilty  of  encouraging  "  a  very  erroneous  and 
"  dangerous  opinion,'^  by  using  the  word  covenant  in 
such  a  connexion.  Such  extravagant  folly  as" this,  my 
Opponent  is  not  now  willing  to  avow.  He  admits  that 
the  original  words  are  properly  translated,  testament, 
constitution,  covenant  ;  although  they  may  sometimes 

(A)  Spur.  Ueb.  p.  173. 


(     184     ) 

signify  an  appointment,  command,  or  law.  Between 
these  two  there  is  no  more  discrepancy,  than  there  is 
in  saying  with  one  breath  that  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land^  and  with 
another  breath,  that  it  is  our  great  political  covenant  or 
federal  compact. 

My  Opponent  speaks  of  our  ecclesiastical  covenant 
as  a  novelty.  I  boast  no  new  discoveries  of  my  own, 
nor  am  I  conscious  of  following  any  novelty  of  the  last 
or  of  the  present  century,  on  this  subject.  An  enlight- 
ened and  candid  examination  of  the  seventh  chapter  of 
the  Westminster  Confession,  and  the  scriptures  ^there 
referred  to,  ought  to  convince  any  one,  not  only  that 
the  covenant  of  works,  and  the  covenant  of  grace  were 
held  by  the  Puritans  and  by  the  Apostles,  but  that  both 
the  Reformed  Presbyterians  and  the  Primitive  Chris- 
tians believed  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  an  eccle- 
siastical exhibition  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  diiferent- 
ly  administered,  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  dis- 
pensations ;  and  of  course  different  from  the  Sinaitic 
covenant  which  has  vanished  long  ago. 

When  my  Opponent  calls  upon  me  so  loudly  and  so 
frequently  to  point  out  that  particular  chapter  in  Gene- 
sis to  which  I  refer  as  containing  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  I  wish  him  to  understand  that  I  refer  to  all 
the  chapters  which  he  has  specified,  and  to  every  other 
in  which  any  part  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  contain- 
ed. The  opinion  that  all  these  passages  record  the  same 
covenant  appears  to  be  founded  on  inspired  authority. 
The  scriptures  say  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  covenant 
*•  which  God  made  with  our  Fathers,  saying  unto  Abra- 


(     185      ) 

''  liam,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the 
''  earth  be  blessed. '^  "  For  the  Lord  thy  God  is  a  mer- 
''  ciful  God ;  he  will  not  forsake  thee,  neither  destroy 
''  thee,  nor  forget  the  covenant  of  thy  fathers,  which 
"  he  sware  unto  them/^  ''  To  remember  his  holy  cov- 
"  enanty  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  Father  Abra- 
"  ham.'^  ''  I  sware  unto  thee,  and  entered  into  a 
''  covenant  with  thee?  saith  the  Lord  God."  '^  Re- 
''  member,  break  not  thy  covenant  with  \is,^\i) 

Against  this  familiar  language  of  scripture,  in  which 
only  one  Abrahamic  covenant  is  mentioned,  my  Oppo- 
nent quotes  one  or  two  instances  in  which  Paul  speaks 
of  covenants,  without  intimating  that  they  were  Abra- 
hamic covenants.  ''  Who  are  Israelites  ;  to  whom  per- 
''  taineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants^ 
"  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God, 
"  and  the  promises.''(y )  Although  "  some  copies,  and 
''  the  Vulgate  Latin  and  Etliiopic  versions,  read  the 
''  covenantj'^^  in  the  singular  number  instead  of  the 
plural,  it  is  evident  that  the  common  is  the  correct 
reading.  But  why  must  we  believe  all  these  cove- 
nants to  have  been  made  with  Abraham  ?  Dr.  Mack- 
night,  whose  version  my  Opponent  professes  to  copy, 
in  his  New  Testament,  calls  these  "  the  two  covenanis,^^ 
^^  the  covenant  with  Abraham,"  "^  and  the  covenant  at 
^'  Sinai."  Some  suppose  them  to  mean  the  two  testa- 
ments :  but  Dr.  Gill  says  that  these  covenants  are 
^^  not  the   two  Testaments,    Old    and  New,    but  the 


(i)  Acts  iii.  25.  Dent.  iv.  31.  Luke  i.  72.  73.  Ez.  xvi.  S,  Jcr.  xiv.  21. 
I J  )  Rom.  ix.  4.  in  Spur,  Deb.  p.  175. 


A  a 


(     186     ) 

^^  covenant  of  circumcision^  made  with  Abraham  their 
''  father,  and  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  they  entered  into 
^^  with  the  Lord.'^  But  my  Opponent  says,  ^'  Besides, 
^^  and  prior  to  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  there  was  a  plurality 
^^  of  covenants  ;'^  and  he  connects  these  covenants  with 
the  fathers,  in  a  manner  quite  too  ingenious  for  me  to  imi- 
tate. He  does  it  by  altering  the  text,  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  give  it  a  meaning  different  from  the  Original,  and  from 
his  own  Incomparable  New  Testament,  and  from  every 
other  translation.  The  following  is  given  by  him,  as 
the  word  of  God,  in  Rom.  ix.  4.  ^^  Who  are  Israelites 
^^  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption  and  the  giving  of  the 
^^  law  and  the  covenants,  whose  are  also  the  fathers.'' 
In  his  New  Testament,  the  covenants^  are  separated 
from  the  fathers,  by  a  dozen  words,  three  commas,  and 
one  semicolon  ;  all  of  which  he  has  here  suppressed,  ex- 
cept one  expression,  "  the  giving  of  the  law,''  which 
he  has  put  out  of  the  way  by  transposition,  in  order 
that  he  may  connect  the  covenants  with  the  fathers, 
which  he  attempts  to  do  more  effectually  by  interpola- 
ting the  word  also.  This  alteration,  however,  is  not 
much  more  outrageous,  than  one  contained  in  bis  book 
against  Mr.  Walker,  where  he  puts  "  by  the  Father,''^ 
instead  of,  "  to  our  Fathers,^^  in  Luke  j,  72. (^)  If  he 
cannot  prove  a  plurality  of  covenants  with  Abraham 
without  making  scripture  for  the  purpose,  you  will  pro- 
bably believe  that  he  cannot  prove  it  all. 

But  in  the  text  under  cpnsideratipn,  my  Opponent 
says  that  "  the  giving  of  the  law"  means  "  the  covenant 

(A-)  Spur.  Deb.  against  Mr.  W.  p.   159. 


(     187     ) 

at  Horeb,"  or  the  Sinaitic  covenant,  and  therefore  "  the 
covenants'^  mentioned  along  with  it,  cannot  mean  the 
same  thing.     This,  however,  is  an  assertion,  not  only 
without  proof,  but  in  opposition  to  proof.     The  Greek 
word  here  used  for  "  the  giving  of  the  law,"  either  sig- 
nifies the  right  of  giving  law,  or  the  act  of  giving  law^ 
or  the  laio  itself.     As  it  is  said  to  pertain  to  the  Israel- 
ites, it  cannot  signify  the  right  of  giving  lata  ;  as  it  per- 
tained to  Paul's  contemporaries,  it  cannot  mean  the  act 
of  giving  law ;  it  must  therefore  mean  the  law  itself 
Kype  remarks  that  ^^by  voiioetaia.\s  here  to  be  understood, 
"  not  so  much  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  which  be- 
"  longed  only  to  the  Mosaic  age,  as  the  law  itself  i.  e. 
'^  the  whole  system  of  his  lawP     ''  And  he  shews," 
says  Parkhurst,  ^^that  this  is  not  an  unusual  sense  of 

The  other  instance  quoted  by  my  Opponent  for  a  plu- 
rality, of  Abrahamic  covenants,  is  where  Paul  tells  the 
Ephesians  that  they  were  once  "  strangers  from  the  co- 
venants of  promise.^'  Whether  or  not  this  is  a  Hebraism, 
in  which  the  plural  is  used  for  the  singular,  need  not 
here  be  discussed.  Dr.  Gill  says  that  this  refers  "  to 
"  the  covenant  of  circumcision  given  to  Abraham  ;  and 
'^  to  the  covenant  at  Mount  Sinai,  made  with  Israel ; 
'^  and  to  the  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of  grace  to  that 
"  people,  sometimes  called  the  first  covenant  and  the  old 
''  covenant,  and  which  peculiarly  belonged  to  them, 
"  Rom.  ix.  4.  One  copy  reads,  strangers  to  the  pro- 
''  mises  of  the  covenant;  which  is  natural  enough. ''(/) 

(0  Gin  on  Eph.  ii.  12.    See  Spur.  Deb.  with  me,  p.  183. 


(     1B8     ) 

^^  But,''  says  my  Opponent,  ^^  we  have  shewn  that 
'^  there  were  diflbrent  covenants  made  with  Abraham, 
^^  distinct  in  their  nature,  time,  place,  and  circum- 
"  stances.  One  was  made  with  him.  Gen.  xii.  when  75 
"  years  old,  in  Haran :  this  was  430  years  before  the  co- 
"  venant  at  Sinai.  This  is  called  by  the  Apostle,  Gal. 
"  iii.  17,  the  covenant  conjii^med  concerning  ChHst,  as 
"  Macknight  renders  it.  This  covenant  was  afterward 
"  confirmed  by  an  oath,  Gen.  xxii.  when  Abraham  of- 
"  fered  up  his  son  upon  the  altar.  Eight  years  after  this 
"covenant.  Gen.  xv.  God  ^MADE  A  COVENANT' 
^^  with  Abraham,  in  the  most  formal  manner,  concern- 
"  ing  Canaan.  Sixteen  years  after  this  time,  (Gen.  xvii.) 
"  he  makes  another  covenant,  called  by  Stephen  the 
'^ '  covenant  of  circumcision.^  Yet  you  were  gravely  told 
^^  that  there  was  but  one  covenant  made  with  Abraham ; 
^^  and  this  an  ecclesiastic  covenant.  Yet  there  is  no 
^^  church,  no  ecclesia  mentioned  in  it,  nor^for  hundreds 
"  of  years  afterwards.  What  a  daring  spirit  does  infant- 
"  sprinkling  inspire  !  Covenants  made  in  different  coun- 
"  tries,  and  at  the  intervals  of  eight,  sixteen,  and  twen- 
"  ty-four  years,  it  calls  one  P\m) 

This  rhapsody  of  my  Baptist  Opponent  considers  the 
number  of  the  Abrahamic  covenants  as  plain  as  the  noon- 
day. They  must  be  three,  exactly  three  ;  and  this  is  so 
obvious  and  so  important,  that  nothing  but  the  daring 
spirit  of  error  will  ever  doubt  it.  Yet  in  another  case 
my  Opponent  himself  seems  to  doubt  whether  ^^wc 
"  should  say  there  were  three  covenants,  or  only  tivo 

(;«)  Sjmv.  Delx  uitii  mc,  p.  1S3. 


(     189     ) 

^^  covenants  made  with  Abraham."  At  that  time  he 
could  not  make  out  the  number  three  without  adding 
the  Sinaitic  covenant,  which  was  not  made  with  Abra- 
ham, but  with  Moses.  The  following  are  his  words,  viz. 
^'  The  Scriptures  on  this  subject  are  very  plain.  They 
^^  speak  of  a  plurality  of  covenants  belonging  to  the 
"  Jews.  There  was  the  covenant '  confirmed  of  God  in 
''  relation  to  Christ,'  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the 
^'  law ;  and  there  was  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  24 
''  years  after  the  former.  There  was  the  covenant  at 
"  Horeb,  430  years  after  the  covenant  confirmed  of  God 
"  in  relation  to  Christ.  Here  are  three  covenants.  The 
"  latter  Mr.  M^Calla  has  discarded  as  that  covenant  on 
"  which  the  Christian  church  is  founded,  but  which  of 
"  the  tivo  former  is  his  ecclesiastical  covenant  he  saith 
"  not.(n) 

If  my  Opponent  has  found  only  two  Abrahamic  cove- 
nants after  all,  you  must  not  be  surprised  if  I  can  find 
only  one  ;  especially  if  I  am  supported  in  this  opinion 
by  the  Bible  and  by  Baptist  authority.  He  has  said 
much  about  these  two  alledged  covenants  being  24  years 
apart,  the  first  in  Gen.  xii.  in  the  year  Before  Chris 
1921  ;  the  second  in  Gen  xvii.  in  the  year  1897  Before 
Christ.  His  book  against  Mr.  Walker  contains  some 
pompous  chronological  trifling  on  this  subject,  in  which 
he  appeals  to  a  table  at  the  end  of  Johnson's  Dictionary. 
Thinking  it  probable  that  Dr.  Allison,  the  Baptist 
preacher,  had  the  same  or  a  similar  chronological  table 
at  the  end  of  his  English  Dictionary,  I  consulted  it,  and 

{7i)  9ijur.  Deb.  with  mc,  pp.  174.  175. 


(     190     ) 

found  the  following  items  in  relation  to  the  12th  and 
17th  chapters  of  Genesis.     They  are  as  follows,  viz : 

''  1921.  The  covenant  made  by  God  with  Abram^ 
when  the  430  years  of  sojourning  commenced. 

1897.  The  covenant  renewed  with  Abram  ;  his  name 
changed  to  Abraham  ;  circumcision  instituted.'' 

So  far  are  these  two  places  from  recording  diiferent 
covenants,  that  the  covenant  with  Isaac,  and  the  cove- 
nant with  Jacob,  are  only  the  same  one  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant reneived,  as  Dr.  Allison  expresses  it.  David  says 
^^  He  hath  remembered  his  covenant  forever,  the  w^ord 
"which  he  commanded  to  a  thousand  generations: 
"  which  covenant  he  made  with  Abraham,  and  his  oath 
^'  unto  Isaac ;  and  confirmed  the  same  unto  Jacob  for  a 
^^  law,  and  to  Israel  for  an  everlasting  covenant.''  As  a 
reason  for  its  being  everlasting.  Dr.  Gill  says  that  ^^  being 
''  remembered,  commanded,  repeated,  and  confirmed, 
^^  it  can  never  be  broken."(o)  To  shew  that  he  some- 
times(j&)  thought  Gen.  xii.  xvii.  and  xxii.  to  contain 
only  this  oite  Abrahamic  covenant,  ^^  commanded,  re- 
peated, and  confirmed,"  he  expressly  refers  to  these  chap- 
ters in  his  exposition  of  this  passage,  and  then  requests 
the  reader  to  compare  with  them  Luke  i.  72.  73.  "  To 
"  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  Fathers,  and  to 
^^  remember  his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  sware 
''  to  our  father  Abraham."  When  the  Psalmist  says, 
*'  Have  respect  unto  the  covenant,''  Gill  says  that  this 
means  '''  not  the  covenant  of  works,"  "  but  the  covenant 
"  of  grace,  made   with  Christ  before  the  world  was, 

0^  Clill  on  Ps.  cv.  8—10. 

i)  Dr.  Gill  somttinies  considers  these  as  distinct  covenants. 


(     191     ) 

^^  and  made  manifest  to  Adam^  to  Noah;,  to  Abraham, 
"  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  to  David,  and  others.'^(5') 

Much  of  my  Opponent's  opposition  to  the  oneness  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  rests  upon  the  untenable  po- 
sition, that  all  the  parts  and  appendages  of  a  constitution 
must  be  drafted  and  published  at  the  same  moment ;  that 
it  is  annulled  by  any  subsequent  enlargement  or  amend- 
ment ;  that  distant  and  different  editions  destroy  its  in- 
tegrity ;  that  every  such  edition,  especially  if  accompa- 
nied with  additions,  even  verbal  or  circumstantial, 
makes  it  essentially  a  new  constitution.  But  if  this  be 
correct,  we  shall  have  to  believe  that  God  made  eight 
covenants  with  Abraham,  instead  of  two  or  three, 
^'  He  certainly  appeared  to  him,  and  addressed  him  in 
'^  covenant  language,  at  eight  different  times.  Nor  is 
''  there  any  thing  in  the  subjects  on  which  he  addressed 
''  him,  which  would  lead  us  to  fix  on  two  covenants, 
'^  rather  than  eight.  Those,  therefore,  who  do  not  be- 
"  lieve  that  he  made  eight  distinct  covenants^  with  him 
'^  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  made  with  him  more 
^^  than  one,^\r)  The  same  criterion  should  lead  its  ad- 
vocates to  believe  that  there  have  been  half  as  many 
constitutions  of  the  United  States.  Our  political  cove- 
nant, as  proposed  by  the  Convention,  in  1797,  had 
seven  articles.  The  first  Congress,  at  its  first  session, 
proposed  ten  additional  articles.  The  eleventh  article 
was  proposed  by  the  first  session  of  the  third  Congress, 
and  the  twelfth  by  the  first  session  of  the  eighth  Con- 

{q)  Ps.  Ixxiv.  20. 

(?')  Pond's  Reply  to  Judson.     p.  74.     He  refers  to  Geri.  ^ii.  1.  and  T. 
xiii.   ;4.  XV.   1.  xvii.  %\\\\,  xxi.  12.  and  xxii.   15, 


(     192     ) 

gress.  All  these  articles  now  form  one  and  the  same 
constitution,  yet  as  drafted  and  adopted  at  four  different 
times,  and  published  in  distant  and  different  editions. 
Neither  would  its  oneness  be  at  all  affected,  if  a  thir- 
teenth article  were  now  added,  appointing  a  governmen- 
tal seal,  or  altering  the  seal  now  in  use,  as  circumcision 
was  added  as  a  seal  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  twenty - 
four  years  after  its  alledged  origin,  and  as  this  seal  was 
altered  to  baptism,  near  two  thousand  years  after  that 
period. 

The  two  titles  which  the  New  Testament  gives  to  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  make  a  delightful  subject  of  decla- 
mation for  my  Opponent.    Stephen  calls  it  "  The  cove- 
^^  nant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ  ;'^ 
and  Paul  calls  it  *^the  covenant  of  circumcision. '^(5) 
When  Stephen  says  that  it  "  was  confirmed  before,^^  he 
means  before  "  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and 
^'  thirty  years  after."     Here  my  Opponent  sets  all  his 
chronological  apparatus  to  work,  to  shew  that  this  430 
years  before  the  law,  will  take  us  back,  not  to  Gen. 
xvii.  when  circumcision  was  instituted,  but  to  Gen.  xii. 
to    ^^  the  ever-memorable  charter  of  all  the  blessings 
'^  which  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  enjoy    through 
''  Christ  ;'^  as  a  certain  Baptist  writer  styles  this  first 
publication  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.     But  mark  well 
a  distinction  between  the  promulgation  and  the  confir- 
mation of  this  "  covenant  confirmed."       The  p7'om2il' 
gation  may   be  in  Gen.    xii.    and   this  may  be  430 
years  before  the  law :  but  that  the  confirmation  is  in  this 

(«)  Acts  vii.  8,  (ial.  iii,  17. 


(      1^3      ) 

chapter  or  at  this  date,  is  not  asserted  by  Stephen,  nor, 
(I  believe,)  by  the  Baptists  themselves.  My  Oppo- 
nent, in  a  passage  already  quoted,  instead  of  referring 
to  Gen.  xii.  sends  us  to  Gen.  xxii.  for  this  confirma- 
tion. His  words  are  "  This  covenant  was  afterwards 
'^  confirmed  by  an  oath.  Gen.  xxii.  when  Abraham 
"  offered  up  his  son  upon  the  Altar.''(/)  Dr.  Gill  does 
not  believe  that  Stephen  refers  to  Gen  xii.  for  one  thing 
or  another,  but  that  his  mention  of  the  covenant  is  to 
be  understood,  "  of  a  peculiar  confirmation  of  it  to 
"  Abraham,  either  by  a  frequent  repetition  thereof,  or 
"  by  annexing  an  oath  unto  it ;  or  rather,  by  those  rites 
"  and  usages,  and  even  wonderful  appearances,  record- 
"  ed  in  Gen.  xv.  9.  10.  12.  13.  17.  18,  and  which 
^^  ^Nd^sfour  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law  was 
^^  given,  which  are  thus  computed  by  the  learned 
^'  Pareus.'^  He  then  gives  us  the  computation  of  Pa- 
rens. 

My  Opponent  looks  for  the  confirmation  in  Gen.  xxii. 
Dr.  Gill  looks  for  it  in  Gen.  xv.  one  on  each  side  of 
Gen.  xvii.  where  it  is  really  to  be  found.  Circumcision 
gives  this  seventeenth  chapter  a  repulsive  aspect.  It 
resembles  many  a  mud- hole  in  the  road  from  Washington 
to  Lexington.  The  way  of  safety  lies  right  through  it : 
but  a  span  of  horses  will  try  hard  to  go  one  on  each  side 
of  it.  There  is  Dr.  Gill,  with  the  chronological  traces 
of  Parens,  pulling  hard  to  the  left ;  Here  is  my  Oppo- 
nent, with  his  chronological  harness,  tugging  and  slip- 
ping and  floundering  toward  the  right.     But  it  will  no| 

(0  Spur.  Deb.  with  me.  p.  183, 

B  I) 


(     194     ) 

all  do ;  the  middle  is  the  road,  and  through  it  the  church 
will  go. 

Dr.  Gill  is  that  reasonable  sort  of  a  man  who  is  apt  to 
make  a  poor  advocate  for  a  bad  cause ;  because  he  ad- 
mits enough  of  the  truth  to  refute  his  own  errors.  In 
the  extract  just  now  given,  he  admits  a  frequent  repeti- 
tion of  the  covenant  to  Abraham.  While  he  allows,  with 
my  Opponent,  that  it  may  be  confirmed  by  an  oath,  he 
admits  that  it  is  confirmed,  ^^  rather  by  those  rites  and 
^'  usages^  and  even  wonderful  appearances  recorded  in 
"  Gen.  xv.^^  Perhaps  you  think  that  he  will,  at  no 
time,  admit  circumcision  among  those  rites  and  usages 
by  which  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  confirmed.  If 
so,  you  are  mistaken.  On  the  New  Testament  he  tells 
us  '^  that  circumcision  was  a  seal,  not  for  secresy,  but 
^'  for  certainty ;  it  being  a  confirmation  not  only  of  the 
''  sincerity  of  Abraham's  faith,  but  of  his  justifying 
^^  righteousness,  which  was  not  his  faith,  but  that 
'^  which  his  faith  looked  to.''(iO  Even  in  Gen.  xvii.  7, 
when  God  says,  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between 
'^  me  and  thee,'^  Gill  explains  this  as  a  declaration  that 
he  will  "  not  only  renew  it,  but  confinn  it  by  the  follow- 
^'  ing  token  of  circumcision."  Thus  it  appears  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not  a  new  one,  but  a 
renewal  of  a  former  one,  with  the  addition  of  a  seal  by 
which  it  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,  to  whose 
righteousness  Abraham's  faith  looked,  when  ^^he  re- 
^^  ceived  the  sign  of  circumcision^  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircum- 

(w)  Rom.  iv.  7, 


ii 


(     195     ) 

^'  cised."  There  is^  in  truth,  no  more  difference  be- 
tween the  covenant  of  circumcision  and  the  covenant 
of  confirmation,  than  there  is  between  our  great  political 
compact  and  our  federal  constitution.  They  mean  the 
same  covenant  as  certainly  as  that  the  scriptures  and 
the  bible  mean  the  same  book. 

All  parties  appear  to  agree  that  the  promises  of  Gen. 
xii.  contemplate  spiritual  blessings,  and  are  given  to 
Abraham's  spiritual  seed:  but  my  Opponent,  in  his 
book  against  Mr.  Walker, (t;)  assures  us  that  the  promises 
in  Gen.  xvii.  are  confined  to  Abraham's  natural  descen- 
dants, and  to  temporal  blessings.  To  do  entire  justice 
to  the  subject,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  institute  a  brief  in- 
quiry concerning  the  persons  and  things  contemplated 
in  both  places. 

I.  The  persons.  The  proof  given  by  the  Baptists, 
that  Gen.  xii.  was  in  behalf  of  Abraham's  spiritual 
seed,  is  found  in  the  following  words  of  the  third  verse ; 
^^and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
Now  let  us  see  whether  there  is  not  something  like  this 
in  the  seventeenth  chapter.  In  the  2nd  verse,  God 
promises  that  he  ^^will  multiply  thee  exceedingly." 
Gill  says  that  "  this  may  include  his  natural  seed  by  her 
^'  [Sarah],  and  his  spiritual  seed  among  all  nations,  who 
''  are  of  the  same  faith  with  him,  see  ch.  xii.  2,  and 
^'  xiii.  16,  and  xv.  5."  Here  the  Dr.  expressly  refers 
to  the  12th  chapter  as  containing  promises  co-extensive 
with  those  of  this  chapter.  But  read  on.  Gen.  xvii. 
4,  says,    "Thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations." 

(v)  p,  160. 


(     196     ) 

After  enumerating  the  many  nations  naturally  descended 
from  Abraham;,  Gill  says,  "  and,  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
''  the  father  of  all  that  believe,  in  all  the  nations  of  the 
"  world,  circumcised  or  uncircumcised,  as  the  Apostle 
^^  explains  it,  Rom.  iv.  11.  12.  16.  17.  18.'^  The 
5th  verse  says,  "  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham,'^  which 
Gill  interprets  "  the  father  of  a  numerous  offspring; 
^'  and  with  this  agrees  the  reason  of  it  as  follows ;  'for 
^' '  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee:^  ^'  on 
which  he  says,  "  Abraham  has  not  only  been  the  father 
^/  of  many  nations,  in  a  literal  sense,  as  before  observed, 
^^  but  in  a  mystical  sense,  of  the  whole  world ;  that  is, 
^^  of  all  in  it  that  believe,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.'^ 
Verse  6th  says,  "  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.'^ 
Gill's  remarks  on  this  are  closed  with  the  following  words, 
\\z.  ^^ . .  .  the  king  Messiah :  to  which  may  be  added,  in 
"  a  mystical  sense,  all  Christian  kings  and  princes  of  the 
'^  same  faith  with  him  ;  nay,  all  believers,  who  are  all 
^'  kings  and  priests  unto  God.''  The  7th  verse  says, 
''  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
''  thee."  Gill  says,  "  Not  only  renew  it,  but  confirm 
^'  it  by  the  following  token  of  circumcision."  The  same 
verse  adds,  '^  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  genera- 
"  tion,  for  an  everlasting  covenant  to  be  a  God  unto 
''  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee  :"  in  commenting 
upon  which.  Gill  thrice  declares  that  the  promise  is  to 
''  his  spiritual  seed."  Here  we  have  the  greatest  Bap- 
tist Commentator  producing  abundant  inspired  evidence 
that  the  covenant  promises  of  Gen.  xvii.  are  not  only 
to  Abraham's  natural,  but  to  his  spiritual  seed  also. 
II.   The  blessings.    i\re  they  spiritual,  or  arc  tliey 


(       197      ) 

temporal  only  ?  My  Opponent  says  that  they  are  the 
latter ;  for  which  he  gives  five  reasons,  (t^;) 

1.  '^^That  they  should  be  a  numerous  and  powerful 
^^  people."  But  the  same  promise  is  contained  in  Gen. 
xii.  2,  which  is  confessedly  spiritual ;  and  the  same  is 
repeatedly  made  to  the  church  militant,  and  even  to  the 
church  triumphant,  after  all  temporal  things  have 
ceased. 

2.  "  That  they  should  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan  for 
"  a  perpetual  possession."  It  is  true  that  this  is  a  tempo- 
ral blessing;  but  let  it  be  remembered,  that,  as  Dr. 
Gill  observes,  it  is  one  "  which  was  a  figure  of  the 
"  heavenly  inheritance,  which  is  an  eternal  one,  and 
''  will  be  enjoyed  by  all  his  spiritual  seed,  to  all  eternity." 
It  is  on  this  principle  that  my  Opponent  has  follow- 
ed Dr.  George  Campbell  in  translating  our  Saviour's 
words,  ''  Happy  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the 
^'  land  ;^\x)  meaning  the  land  of  Canaan,  here  used 
as  a  figure,  referring  not  only  to  temporal,  but  ''  to 
'^  eternal  benefits,^'  as  Dr.  Campbell  expressly  declares 
in  his  note  on  the  place.  Thus  did  Paul  view  this  pro- 
mise to  Abraham  when  he  says,  "  'Qy  faith  he  sojourned 
"  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  strange  country,  dwel- 
"  ling  in  tabernacles,  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs 
"  with  him  of  the  same  promise  ;  for  he  looked  for  a 
"  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker 
<^isGod."(3^) 

3.  You  will,  no  doubt,  be  astonished  to  hear  that  the 
ground  of  my  Opponent's  third  reason  is,  that  in  the  7th 

(iv)  spur.  Deb.  with  Mr.  W.  p.  160.  (jc)  Matt.  v.  5. 

ly)  Hcbr.  xi.  9.  10. 


(     198     ) 

verse  God  promises  ^^  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
^*  seed  after  thee  ;''  and  in  the  eighth  verse  he  says,  "  I 
"  will  be  their  God.'^  In  the  7th  verse  Gill  believes 
that  his  Maker  enters  into  covenant  with  Abraham's 
^^  spiritual  seed,  as  the  God  of  all  grace,  supplying  them 
^^  with  grace  here,  and  bestowing  upon  them  glory  here- 
*"'  after/'  The  eighth  verse  he  explains  in  a  similar 
manner. 

4.  '^  It  was  conditional/'  This  assertion  my  Oppo- 
nent endeavours  to  support,  by  saying  '^  See  Gen.  xvii. 
^*  throughout."  But  fearing  that  this  would  not  answer, 
he  quotes  "and  the  uncircumcised  man-chiid....he  hath 
"  broken  my  covenant :"  that  is,  says  Dr.  Gill  ^^  made 
"  it  null  and  void,  neglecting  the  token  of  it,  circum- 
'^  cision."  As  this  does  not  appear  sufficient,  my 
Opponent  tacks  to  it,  as  belonging  to  the  same  chapter, 
the  following  words  of  Isaiah,  viz.  "  If  ye  be  willing 
<^  and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land."  The 
next  verse  adds,  ''  but  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall 
"  be  devoured  with  the  sword-^te)  This  may  do  very 
well  to  shew  the  character  of  the  Sinaitic  covenant ;  for 
it  is  almost  transcribed  from  Leviticus  xxvi.  which  Gill 
declares  related  to  "  the  covenant  made  with  them  at 
"  Sinai."(a)  My  Opponent  may  excuse  his  disingenu- 
ousness,  by  recurring  to  a  pretended  amalgamation  of 
these  two  covenants.  I  hope  soon  to  shew  you,  with 
the  help  of  heaven,  that  this  also  is  a  fiction. 

5.  "It  was  a  covenant  in  the  flesh  and  not  in  the 
"  spirit.     '  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh,'  Gen. 

(z)  Is.  i.  19.  20. 

{a)  Lev.  xxvi.  3.  4.  14.  17.  Thcnienti6nof  the  covenant  is  in  verse  15. 


(     199     ) 

'^  xvii.  13.  The  rite  of  circumcision  was  the  seal  of 
this  covenant/' ! !  ! !  What  an  admirable  argument !  ! 
Well  may  its  author  boast  of  his  "  critical  accumen," 
and  his  ''  respectability  as  a  scholar."  We  have  been 
accustomed  to  thinking  that  the  expression,  "  My  cov- 
''  enant  shall  be  in  your  flesh/'  meant,  that  circumci- 
sion, the  seal  or  token  of  the  covenant,  should  be  in  the 
flesh,  while  the  thing  signified  by  it  might,  nevertheless 
be  in  the  spirit,  according  to  an  express  promise  that 
''  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the 
*^  heart  of  thy  seed.'' (6)  So  we  have  always  thought 
that  the  application  of  baptism  to  the  body  did  not  ex- 
clude the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  :  but  my  Oppo- 
nent has  discovered  that  an  application  of  the  sacerdo- 
tal knife,  or  of  the  baptismal  water  to  the  body,  proves 
that  the  covenant  with  which  they  are  connected  is 
wholly  temporal,  and  has  no  relation  to  spiritual  bles- 
sings at  all !  According  to  Dr.  Gill,  however,  ^^  cir- 
^*  cumcision  was  a  typical  sign  of  Christ,  as  all  the  qere- 
^^  monies  of  the  law  were,  and  of  the  shedding  of  his 
^'  blood,  to  cleanse  from  all  sin,  original  and  actual,  and 
^'  also  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart ;  and  was  more- 
^^  over  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith. "(c) 

That  you  may  feel  a  proper  interest  in  this  discussion, 
it  is  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  the  reason,  why  there 
has  been  such  a  waste  of  industry  and  ingenuity,  in  en- 
deavouring to  debase  and  destroy  the  holy  ordinance  of 

(6)  Deut.  XXX.  6. 

(c)  Gill  on  Rom.  iv.  11.  In  relation  to  this  subject,  the  Doctor's  oppo- 
sition to  Pedobaptism  makes  him  sometimes  speak  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  contradict  himself,  and  to  reject  truths  whicii  he,  at  other  times,  ad- 
mits. 


(     200     ) 

circumcision.     If  the  substance   of  this  ordinance  be 
permitted  to  continue  as  the  seal  of  a  permanent  cove- 
nant^ my  Opponent  knows  that  it  can  be  found  no  where 
in  the  Christian  church,  except  in  the  form  of  baptism. 
If  baptism,  therefore,  be  the  Christian  circumcision,  as 
it  was  considered  by  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Chris- 
tians, then   it  must,  like   the  Jewish  circumcision,  be 
administered  to  believers  and  their  households.     Here 
would  be  infant  baptism  at  once  ;  and  all  this,  on  account 
of  circumcision,  that  obnoxious  institution.     To  avoid 
this  he  must  destroy  circumcision  both  in  its  form  and 
substance.     But  this  cannot  be  done  without  destroying 
the  covenant  of  which  it  is  a  seal.     To  accomplish  this 
they  must  either  deny  the  perpetuity  of  the  one  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  which  they  are  not  prepared  to  do,  or 
they  must  find  two  Abrahamic  covenants,  one  of  which 
may  lay  exclusive  claims  to  circumcision,  and  be  de- 
stroyed with  it.     Because  circumcision  is  found  in  Gen. 
xvii.  that  chapter  is  marked  for  destruction,  as  contain- 
ing a  covenant  w^hich  is  temporary  in  its  duration,  and 
temporal  in  its  benefits,  and  essentially  diflerent  from 
the  covenant  which  is  recorded  before  and  after  it.    But 
this  plurality  of  Abrahamic  covenants  is  not  only  un- 
known to  the  inspired  writers,  but  is,  as  we  have  shewn, 
in  direct  opposition  to  their  repeated  declarations,  both 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments :  and  so  far  is  Gen. 
xvii.  from  containing  a  temporary  covenant  with  tempo- 
ral benefits,  that  its  evidence  of  spirituality  and  perpe- 
tuity is  more  abundant  than  that  of  any  other  publication 
of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  in  the  whole  book.     To  an 
.unprejudiced  mind,  it  is  plain,  that  the  covenant  which 


(     201     ) 

was  published  and  repeated  in  the  twelfth  and  fifteenth 
chapters,  was  ratified  or  established,  or,  as  Dr.  Gill  ex- 
plains it,  renewed  and  confirmed^  in  the  seventeenth, 
where  circumcision  was  given  as  a  seal. 

Even  those  who  make  this  latter  a  distinct  and  de- 
structible covenant,  have  to  give  it  entirely  a  new  name, 
before  they  can  find  any  Scripture  that  will  put  it  to 
death.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  bible,  for  destroying 
any  Abrahamic  covenant :  they  are  obliged,  therefore, 
to  call  it  the  Sinaitic  covenant,  or  the  covenant  of  Ho- 
reb.  Ask  my  Opponent  how  it  obtained  this  new  name, 
and  he  will  tell  you  that  it  was  by  amalgmnation.  Yes, 
it  was  not  by  inspiration,  but  by  a  process  unknown  to 
the  Scriptures,  or  the  ancient  church  ;  a  federal  amal- 
gamation^ elaborated  in  the  flimsy  prejudices  of  modern 
theological  alchymists.  As  it  has  been  proved  that  there 
are  not  two  distinct  Abrahamic  covenants,  permit  me 
now  to  shew  that  the  Abrahamic  and  Sinaitic  are  two 
distinct  covenants,  which  never  have  coalesced  and 
never  will.  According  to  the  Scriptures,  they  differ  in 
the  following  features. 

1.  They  are  said  to  be  two,  ^^  Which  things  are  an 
^^  allegory :  for  these  are  the  tvx)  covenants.'^(Gf) 

2.  They  differ  in  their  tendency.  This  is  proved  by 
the  words  immediately  following  those  just  now  quoted. 
^^  The  one  from  the  mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth  to 
"  bondage,  which  is  Agar.(c/) 

3.  They  are  distinguished  as  my  and  thy  covenants ; 
the  Lord  claiming  the  one  which  tends  to  promote  liber- 

(of)  Gal.  iv.  24. 


(     202     ) 

ty.  ^'Nevertheless,  I  will  remember  my  covenant  with 
'*  thee  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  and  I  will  establish  [or 
'^  confirm  it]  unto  thee  [as]  an  everlasting  covenant. 
^'  Then  thou  shalt  remember  thy  ways,  and  be  ashamed, 
^'  when  thou  shalt  receive  thy  sister,  [the  Gentiles] 
^'  thine  elder  and  thy  younger :  and  I  will  give  them 
*'  unto  thee  for  daughters,  but  not  by  thy  covenant.  And 
'^  I  will  establish  [or  confirm]  my  covenant,  [made  in 
^'  the  days  of  thy  youth]  with  thee.''(€)  My  Opponent 
justly  remarks  that  Ezekiel  here  '^  promises  the  union  of 
''Jews  and  Gentiles  under  a  covenant  positively  de- 
"  clared  to  be  not  the  Sinaitic,'^  for  he  says,  "  not  by 
"  thy  covenant.^'  The  next  question  is,  what  is  that 
everlasting  covenant,  which,  in  this  short  passage,  the 
Lord  twice  promises  that  he  will  establish  or  confirm  on 
the  union  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  ?  Dr.  Gill  says  it  is 
"  the  covenant  of  grace,  made  with  the  Messiah  and  his 
"  spiritual  seed ;  which  is  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ.'^ 
But  both  he  and  my  Opponent  believe  the  '^  covenant 
confirmed  of  God  in  Christ'^  to  be  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant. And  where  is  this  everlasting  covenant  first  said 
to  be  established  or  confirmed  ?  It  is  in  Gen.  xvii.  Yes, 
in  the  seventh  verse  of  that  oficnsive  chapter,  God  says, 
''  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
"  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an 
"  everlasting  covenant.*'  It  is  here  also  that  Gill's  ad- 
mirable commentary  says  that  this  establishing  of  the 
covenant,  means  that  God  will  "  not  only  renew  it,  but 
'*  confirm  it  by  the  following  token  of  circumcision." 

(f)  Ez.  xvi.  60— 62*  -V  , 


(     203     ) 

This,  tlierefore,  is  ''  my  covenant  with  tliee  in  the  days 
''  of  thy  youth/^  Gill's  Baptist  prejudices  make  him 
anxious  to  confine  the  days  of  their  youth  to  the  Sinaitic 
covenant.  He  nevertheless  approves  of  the  declaration 
of  Kimchi,  who  says  that  "  all  the  while  they  were  in 
"  Egypt,  and  until  they  came  into  the  land  of  Canaan, 
^'  were  called  the  days  of  their  youth.''  This  account 
of  their  youth  embraces  many  centuries  before  the  Si- 
naitic covenant,  during  all  of  which  time  they  were  un- 
der the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in  which  God  had  pre- 
dicted their  bondage  in  Egypt,  and  deliverance  from 
\t.[f)  This  was  done  in  a  covenant  which  was  made  be- 
fore the  institution  of  circumcision,  and  only  "renewed" 
and  "  confirmed"  in  the  appointment  of  that  seal.  This 
covenant  which  God  confirmed  with  them  in  their 
youtK,  by  circumcision,  he  promises  to  confirm  with 
them  on  the  union  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  it  may  in- 
deed be  an  everlasting  covenant,  after  that  of  Sinai  is 
abolished. 

4.  They  differ  in  their  dates.  Moses  says,  "The 
'^Lord  our  God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb. 
'^The  Lord  made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers, 
'^  but  with  us,  even  us,  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive  this 
^'  day."(^)  Gill  supposes  that  the  fathers  here  men- 
tioned, may  "  be  understood  of  their  more  remote  an- 
^'  cestors,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  with  whom  the 
''  covenant  of  grace  was  made,  or  afresh  made  manifest, 
^'  especially  with  the  former ;  when  the  law,  the  cove- 
^^  nant  here  spoken  of,  was  not  delivered  until  430  years 

(/)  Gen.  XV.  13—16.  (^)  Deut.  v.  7,  3, 


(     204     ) 

*^  after.  Gal.  iii.  16.  17."  These  references  read  as 
follows:  '^  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  pro- 
''  mises  made.  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many; 
''  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.  And 
''  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before 
^^  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred 
^'  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should 
^^  make  the  promise  of  none  efFect.^^ 

5.  They  differ  in  their  qualities.  "  But  now  hath  he 
''  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry,  by  how  much  also 
^'  he  is  the  Mediator  of  a  better  covenant  which  was  es- 
^'  tablished  upon  better  promises.  For  if  the  first  cove- 
''  nant  had  been  faultless,  then  should  no  place  have 
^^  been  sought  for  the  second.  For  finding  fault  with 
^^  them,  he  saith.  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
^'  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of 
^^  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah :  not  according  to 
^'  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers,  in  the 
^'  day  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of 
^'  the  land  of  Egypt ;  because  they  continued  not  in  my 
^'  covenant,  and  I  regarded  them  not,  saith  the  Lord.'^(A) 
Notwithstanding  the  obscurity  of  what  my  Opponent 
says  on  this  passage,{f)  you  may  perceive  that  he  admits 
the  Sinaitic  covenant  to  be  the  old  and  faulty  one  which 
gives  way  to  the  new  and  better  covenant.  Thus  also 
Dr.  Gill ;  "  That  the  Sinai  covenant  is  intended,  is  clear 
''  by  the  following  circumstance :  '  In  the  day  that  I 
^'  '  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land 
^'^of  Egypt;'  that  is,  immediately  after  their  being 

(A)  Heb.  viii.  6 — 9.  (n  Spur.  W-h.  with  n)e,  p.  246. 


(     205      J 

''  brought  out  of  Egypt,  the  covenant  was  made  with 
"  them/^(;)  But  the  question  in  dispute  is,  What  is 
meant  by  the  new  and  better  covenant,  which  is  so  far 
superior  to  that  of  Sinai  ?  My  Opponent  can  give  no 
other  account  of  it  than  to  assure  you  that  it  is  a  neiv 
covenant,  essentially  different  from  the  Mrahamic,  If 
so,  it  must  be  newly  made,  or  newly  revealed,  or  both 
newly  made  and  revealed.  My  opinion  is,  that  it  is  no 
new  constitution  or  revelation,  but  a  new  administration 
of  a  covenant  revealed  to  Abraham. 

My  Opponent  has  sometimes  made  a  show  of  quoting 
our  Confession  of  Faith  against  me.  Permit  me  to  quote 
it  on  this  occasion.  It  is  an  excellent  expositor  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  it  speaks  my  sentiments  in  better  words  than  my 
own  ;  and  it  gives  me  an  opportunity  of  shewing  the  ex- 
act agreement  which  there  is  between  the  highest  Bap- 
tist and  Pedobaptist  authorities  on  this  subject.  In  rela- 
tion to  the  covenant  of  Grace,  our  Confession  speaks  as 
follows,  viz.  "This  covenant  was  differently  adminis- 
^'  tered  in  the  time  of  the  law,  and  in  the  time  of  the 
"  gospel :  under  the  law  it  was  administered  by  pro- 
"  mises,  prophecies,  sacrifices,  circumcision,  the  Pas- 
"  chal  lamb,  and  other  types  and  ordinances  delivered 
"  to  the  people  of  the  Jews,  all  foresignifying  Christ  to 
"  come,  which  were  for  that  time  sufficient  and  effica- 
'*  cious,  through  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  to  instruct 
'^  and  build  up  the  elect  in  faith  in  the  promised  Mes- 
''  siah,  by  whom  they  had  full  remission  of  sins,  and 
^'  eternal  salvation ;  and  is  called  the  Old  Testament. 

(/)  Gill  on  Jer.  xxxi.  32,  which  Paul  quotes. 


(     206     ) 

**  Under  the  gospel,  when  Christ  the  substance,  was  cx- 
^^  hibited,  the  ordinances  in  which  this  covenant  is  dis- 
^'  pensed  are  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  the  admin- 
^^  istration  of  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
''  supper ;  which,  though  fewer  in  number,  and  admin- 
*'  istered  with  more  simplicity  and  less  outward  glory, 
'^^  yet  in  them  it  is  held  forth,  in  more  fulness,  evidence, 
^'  and  spiritual  efficacy,  to  all  nations,  both  Jews  and 
^^  Gentiles ;  and  is  called  the  New  Testament.  There 
'^  are  not,  therefore,  two  covenants  of  grace  differing  in 
^'  substance,  but  one  and  the  same  under  various  dis- 
^'  pensations/''(/)  In  support  of  these  sentiments,  the 
Confession  refers  to  those  passages  in  which  Jeremiah 
and  Paul  speak  of  the  old  and  faulty  covenant  giving 
way  to  the  new  and  better  one.  It  also  refers  to  several 
texts  which  relate  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  its 
seal.  The  extract,  with  its  proofs,  goes  to  shew  that 
the  authors  of  the  Confession  believed  with  me,  that  the 
new  covenant  of  Jeremiah  and  Paul,  was  no  new  consti- 
tution or  new  revelation,  but  a  new  administration  of  a 
covenant  revealed  to  Abraham. 

The  coincidence  of  Dr.  Gill's  opinion  will  appear  in 
the  following  extract,  viz.  '"  That  I  will  make  a  new 
^'  ^covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house 
^^^Judah;'  by  this  covenant  is  meant  the  covenant  of 
*'  grace ;  called  new,  not  because  newly  made,  for  it 
'^  was  made  with  the  elect  in  Christ  from  everlasting  ; 
^^  so  early  was  Christ  set  up  as  the  Mediator  of  it ;  and 
^^  so  early  were  promises  made,  and  blessings  given  to 

(/)  Confession,  Ch.  7.  Sect.  5.  6. 


(     207      ) 

*'  them  in  him  :  nor  because  newly  revealed  ;  for  it  was 
^^  made  known  to  all  the  saints  more  or  less,  under  the 
"  former  dispensation,  particularly  to  David,  to  Abra- 
"  ham,  yea,  to  our  first  parents  immediately  after  the 
"  fall,  though  more  clearly  manifested  under  the  gospel 
^'  dispensation ;  but  because  of  its  new  mode  of  exhi- 
"  bition  ;  not  by  types,  and  shadows,  and  sacrifices,  as 
''  formerly  ;  but  by  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  the 
"  administration  of  gospel  ordinances  ;  and  in  distinc- 
"  tion  from  the  former  covenant,  which  is  done  away, 
"  as  to  the  mode  of  it ;  and  because  it  is  a  famous  cov- 
''  enant,  an  excellent  one,  a  better  covenant,  best  of  all ; 
^^  better  than  the  covenant  of  works,  and  even  better 
''  than  the  covenant  of  grace,  under  the  former  admin- 
"  istration.^'(??i)  There  is  no  difficulty  in  seeing  from 
this  extract,  that  Dr.  Gill  believes  that  the  new  and  bet- 
ter covenant  which  supplants  the  Sinaitic,  is  no  new 
constitution  or  revelation,  but  only  a  new  administration 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  revealed  to  Abraham,  and 
even  to  Adam  ;  and  exhibited  to  God's  people  both  in 
the  Old  and  in  the  New  dispensations,  in  ecclesiastical 
ordinances  ;  so  that  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  exhibition  of 
the  covenant  of  grace.  Dr.  Gill  himself  being  judge. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  same  sentiments,  as  far  as  is 
necessary  for  the  point  now  in  hand,  have  been  officially 
declared  by  the  Regular  Baptist  churches  of  England 
and  America,  in  "  A  Confession  of  Faith  put  forth 
"  by  the  Elders  and  Brethren,  of  many  Congregations 
^'  of  Christians  J  (baptised  upon   profession  of  their 

(m)  (iill  on  Jcr.  xxxu  al. 


(     208     ) 

^'  faith,  J  in  London  and  the  country.     Adopted  by  the 
"  Baptist  Association  met  at  Philadelphia,  September 
^'  25,  1742.''      In  relation  to  the  subject  now  before 
us,  this  Baptist  Formulary  says,  ^^This  covenant  is  re- 
^^  vealed  in  the  gospel  first  of  all  to  Adam  in  the  pro- 
^^  mise  of  salvation  by  the  seed  of  the  woman,  and  after- 
^^  wards  by  farther  steps,  until  the  full  discovery  there- 
^'  of  was  completed  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  it  is 
^^  founded  in  that  eternal  covenant  transaction,  that  was 
^^  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  about  the  redemption 
''  of  the  elect ;  and  it  is  alone  by  the  grace  of  this  cov- 
^^  enant,  that  all  of  the  posterity  of  fallen  Adam,  that 
'^  ever  were   saved,    did  obtain  life  and   blessed  im- 
^^  mortality  ;  man  being  now  utterly  incapable  of  accep- 
^^  tance  with  God  upon  those  terms  on  which  Adam 
^^  stood  in  his  state  of  innocency.''(?i)     I  would  call  your 
attention  to  a  particular  doctrine  stated  in  this  extract, 
in  connexion  with  the  texts  referred  to  in  the  bottom  of 
the  page  to  support  it.     The  doctrine  is,  that  ^*  it  is 
*^  alone  by  the  grace  of  this  covenant,  that  all  of  the 
^^  posterity  of  fallen  Adam,  that  ever  were  saved,  did 
'*  obtain  life  and  blessed  immortality."     In  support  of 
this  doctrine,  this  Baptist  Confession  refers  to  John  viii. 
56.     ^^  Your  Father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day  ; 
^^  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad."     But  lest  this  should 
leave  us  in  doubt,  whether  they  meant  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  with  or  without  the  seal  of  circumcision,  this 
same  Baptist  Confession  refers  us  to  Rom.  iv.  through- 
out ;  which  dwells  almost  wholly  upon  the  Abrahamic 

(n)  Chap.  7,  Sect.  3. 


(     209     ) 

Covenant  as  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  where  Abraham 
^'  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  right- 
^'  eousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncir- 
^'  cumcised.''  This  shews  from  the  highest  Baptist 
authority  in  the  world,  that  the  new  and  better  covenant 
of  the  New  Testament  church,  which  supplants  the 
Sinaitic  covenant,  is  no  new  constitution  or  revelation, 
but  only  a  new  administration  of  the  eternal  covenant  of 
grace,  which  was  revealed  to  Adam  in  Gen.  iii.  and 
which  was  visibly  and  ecclesiastically  exhibited  to  Abra- 
ham, in  Gen.  xvii.  where  it  was  sealed  with  circumci- 
sion. 

Notwithstanding  the  great  inferiority  of  the  covenant 
of  Sinai,  its  institutions  were  an  obscure  publication  of 
the  gospel.  It  was  therefore  subservient  to  the  covenant 
of  grace.  But,  that  it  made,  comparatively,  a  very 
slender  provision  for  the  consolation  and  salvation  of  the 
church,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Moses,  by  whom 
it  was  given,  goes  past  his  own  ceremonial  and  legal  cov- 
enant, and  resorts  to  that  of  Abraham,  when  interceding 
for  rebellious  Israel.  In  the  same  chapter  of  his  law, 
the  legal  character  of  the  one  covenant,  and  the  gracious 
character  of  the  other  are  plainly  marked.  Speaking 
the  language  of  the  Sinaitic  covenant,  he  says,  '^  But 
''  if  ye  will  not  hearken  unto  me,  and  will  not  do  all 
''  these  commandments,  and  if  ye  shall  despise  my 
^^  statutes,  or  if  your  soul  abhor  my  judgments,  so  that 
'^  ye  will  not  do  all  my  commandments,  but  that  ye  break 
^'  my  covenant,  I  also  will  do  this  unto  you.''  Then 
he  denounces  ^multiplied  and  aggravated  curses  upon 

them.     Dr.  Gill  says  that  this  was  ''  the  covenant  made 
Dd 


(     210     ) 

^^  with  them  at  Sinai,  when  they  promised  on  their  part, 
^'  that  they  would  hearken  and  be  obedient. ''(o)  Im- 
mediately after  this  Moses  adds,  '^  If  they  shall  confess 
'^  their  iniquity,"  '^  then  will  I  remember  my  covenant 
^^  with  Jacob,  and  also  my  covenant  with  Isaac,  and  also 
^^  my  covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember ;  and  I 
^'  will  remember  the  land/^  Gill  says  that  this  cove- 
nant "  chiefly  respects  the  multiplication  of  their  seed, 
'^  the  continuance  of  them,  and  the  Messiah  springing 
^*  from  them  ;  which  is  the  mercy  promised  to  these  fa- 
^^  thers,  and  the  principal  part  of  the  covenant  made 
^^  with  them,  and  which  was  remembered  and  performed 
'^  when  God  visited  and  redeemed  his  people  by  him, 
*'  Luke  i.  68— 73."(p)  Immediately  after  the  Sinaitic 
covenant  was  given,  and  Aaron  and  the  people  had  pro* 
voked  the  Lord  with  the  golden  calf,  Moses  says,  "  Turn 
^^  from  thy  fierce  wrath,  and  repent  of  this  evil  against 
^'  thy  people.  Remember  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Israel 
^'  thy  servants,  to  whom  thou  swearest  by  thine  own 
''  stW^q)  To  this  was  God's  mercy  ascribed  in  after 
days.  "  And  the  Lord  was  gracious  unto  them,  and 
^^  had  compassion  on  them,  and  had  respect  unto  them, 
^^  because  of  his  covenant  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Ja- 
^'  cob,  and  would  not  destroy  them,  neither  cast  he  them 
''  from  his  presence  as  yet.''(r)  In  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue of  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Paul  shewed  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant  may  well  serve  as  a  text  for  a  gospel 
sermon.  "  And  we  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings,  how 
^'  that  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers, 

(o)  Gill  on  Lev.  xxvi.  15.  {fi)  Gill  on  Lev.  xxvi.  42. 

(</)  Ex.  xxxii.  12.  13.  (r)  2  Kings  xiii.  23. 


\ 


(     211      ) 

^'  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us  their  children,  in 
^'  that  he  hath  raised  up  Jesus  again. '^  Dr.  Gill  says 
that  this  promise  is  ''  not  barely  and  solely  that  which 
''  respects  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  but  the  mission 
^'  of  him,  the  exhibition  of  him  in  human  nature,  his 
'^  incarnation,  his  work  and  business  he  was  to  do, 
^^  namely,  to  obtain  salvation  for  his  people ;  it  chiefly 
''  regards  the  promise  of  his  coming  into  the  world  to 
^'  do  the  will  of  God,  which  promise  was  made  to  Abra- 
^'  ham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Judah.'^W 

6.  There  is  such  a  difference  in  the  duration  of  the 
Abrahamic  and  Sinaitic  covenants,  as  totally  to  forbid 
the  amalgamation  system.  We  have  already  found  that 
Paul  meant  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  when  he  said,  ^'  Now 
^'  that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  van- 
''  ish  away.^'(^)  This  covenant  vanished  soon  after  the 
coming  of  Christ :  but  where  is  the  evidence  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  vanished  at  that  period?  Instead 
of  that,  Paul  represents  Abraham  as  the  father  of  be- 
lieving Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  (w)  It  was  concerning 
this  period  that  God  said,  ^^  Then  will  I  remember  my 
''  covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  my  covenant  with  Isaac, 
^'  and  also  my  covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember.'' 
Dr.  Gill  expressly  says  that  this  covenant  '^  was  remem- 
^^  bered  and  performed  when  God  visited  and  redeemed 
''  his  people  by  him  [Christ]  Luke  i.  68—73.^'  The 
Psalmist  says  "  He  hath  remembered  his  covenant  for 
"  ever,  the  w^ord  which  he  commanded  to  a  thousand 

{s)  Gill  on  Acts  xiii.  32.  (r)  Hebr.  viii.  13. 

(m)  Rom.  iv.  11.  12.     Compare  Is.  Iv.  3—5.  Ivi.  4 — 8,  where  the  ex- 
tension of  the  covenant  to  Gentiles  is  foretold.  ^ 


(     212     ) 

^'  generations :  which  covenant  he  made  with  Abraham, 
''  and  his  oath  unto  Isaac,  and  confirmed  the  same  unto 
"  Jacob  for  a  law,  and  to  Israel  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
''  nant/^       Dr.    Gill    says  that  this    covenant    "  shall 
^'  stand  good,  and  be  punctually  performed,  '  to  a  thou- 
''  '  sand  generations,'    that  is,  forever."(i;)      For  this 
also,  as  well  as  the  last  text,  he  refers  to  the  latter  part  of 
the  first  Chapter  of  Luke.     "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God 
''  of  Israel,  for  he  hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  peo- 
^'  ple,'^  "  to  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers, 
^'  and  to  remember  his  holy  covenant,''  *^  which,"  says 
Dr.  Gill,  ''  was  made  between  him  and  his  Son  from 
*^  all  eternity ;  and  was,  at  various  times,  dispensed  and 
^^  manifested  to  the  patriarchs,  and  eminent  saints,  as 
^^  Adam,  Noah,  Abraham,  &q,^\w)     This  is  confirmed 
by  the  very  next  verse,  which  says,  ''  the  oath  which 
^^  he  sware  to  our  father  Abraham."     Besides  referring 
us  to  this  passage  from  the  Psalm  just  now  quoted,  the 
Doctor  sends  us  to  three  different  places  in  Genesis, 
among  which  we  find  the  seventeenth  chapter,  where 
this  covenant  is  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,  by  the  seal 
of  circumcision.     It  is  not,  therefore,  some  other  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  but  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  which 
God  has  "  ^  commanded  to  a  thousand  generations,'  that 
^^  is,  forever,"  as  the  Doctor  says.     If,  therefore,  the 
Abrahamic  covenant   of  circumcision  is  eternal  in  its 
duration,  and  the  Sinaitic  covenant  has  already  perished, 
their  amalgamation  must  be  a  work  of  imagination  only. 

{v)  Gill  on  Ps.  cv.  8.  (w)  Gill  on  Luke  i.  Ixxii. 


(     213     ) 


It  appears,  therefore,  from  the  bible  and  the  highest 
Baptist  authority,  that  the  one  Abrahamic  covenant, 
sealed  with  circumcision,  is  perpetual ;  that  notwith- 
standing the  change  of  administration,  the  covenant  is 
the  same ;  and  that  this  ecclesiastical  exhibition  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  is  the  common  constitution  of  the  Jew- 
ish society  before  Christ,  and  of  the  Christian  society  af- 
ter Christ ;  wherefore  these  societies  having  one  consti- 
tution, are  one  church;  which  was  the  point  to  be 
proved. 


We  have  now  finished  the  evidence  promised  in  sup- 
port of  the  second  proposition,  that  "  the  Christian 
^'  church  is  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic  church  ;  or  in 
"  other  words,  the  Jewish  society  before  Christ,  and  the 
"  Christian  society  after  Christ  are  one  and  the  same 
''  church  in  different  administrations. '^  We  have  proved 
this  by  the  substantial  sameness  of  their  religion :  they 
have  the  same  theology,  morality,  worship,  government, 
and  discipline.  This  has,  moreover,  been  shewn  from 
the  manner  in  which  the  same  names  are  given  to  them : 
they  are  both  God's  peculiar  treasure,  a  royal  priesthood, 
and  an  holy  nation.  They  are  both  God's  ecclesiastical 
tree  and  vineyard ;  foundation,  floor,  and  house  ;  king- 
dom and  commonwealth ;  man  and  body ;  brethren, 
bride  and  children.  And  it  has  just  now  been  shewn 
that  the  same  ecclesiastical  exhibition  of  the  eternal  co- 
venant of  grace  is  the  one  common  constitution  of  the 


(     214     ) 

two  societies :  wherefore  they  must  be  one  church, 
though  in  different  dispensations.     Both  the  premises 
and  the  conclusion  have  been  supported  by  the  Scrip- 
turesj  and  it  has  been  shewn  that  they  are  both  ratified 
by  Doctor  Gill;  the  greatest  Baptist  writer  who  ever 
lived.     If,  through  prejudice  or  forgetful ness,  any  one 
doubt  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  let  him  candidly 
attend  to  what  the  Doctor  says,  on  that  declaration  of 
Solomon,  that  "  Wisdom  hath  builded  her  house ;  she 
hath  hewn  out  her  seven  pillars.'^(A)    This,  Gill  says,  is 
^'  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  the  house  of  the  living 
'^'  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth. ^^     '^  Such  a 
^'  house  there  was  under  the  Old  Testament,  and  such  an 
^'  one  there  is  under  the  New;  and  which  is  continually 
*^  building  up  by  Christ,  by  means  of  the  word  and  ordi- 
'^  nances,  and  will  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
When  Solomon  says,  '^  There  is  no  new  thing  under 
the  sun,'^(2)  Dr.  Gill  says,  that  even  "  spiritual  things,'^ 
^^  though  in  some  sense  new,  are  also  old;  or  there  have 
^'  been  the  same  things  for  substance  in  former  ages, 
<^  and  from  the  beginning,  as  now ;  such  as  the  new  cove- 
^'nant  of  grace  ;  the  new  and  living  way  to  God  ;  new 
'^  creatures  in  Christ;  a  new  name ;  the  JVew  Testament, 
'^  and  the  doctrines  of  it ;  new  ordinances,  and  the  new 
'^  commandment  of  love;  and  yet  these,  in  some  sense,  are 
'^  all  old  things,  and  indeed  are  the  same  in  sub- 
^^  STANCE,"   These  are  the  words  of  Dr.  Gill.   In  them 
you  find  express  and  repeated  acknowledgments  of  the 
scriptural  truths,  that  the  church  and  covenant,  doc- 

(A)  Prov.  ix.  1.  (0  Eccles.  i.  9. 


(     215     ) 

trines  and  ordinances,  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
are  ^'  the  same  things  for  substance  ;''  ''  the  same 
IN  SUBSTANCE.'^  If,  in  relation  to  these  ordinances, 
Providence  enable  me  to  prove,  from  Scripture,  the  si- 
gillistical  identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism,  and  the 
unrepealed  requirement  that  this  seal  shall  be  adminis- 
tered to  infants,  it  will  plainly  appear,  from  infallible 
authority,  that  there  is  a  divine  command  for  infant- 
baptism. 


PROPOSITION  III. 

Jewish  Circumcision  before  Christ,  and  Christian  Bap- 
tism AFTER  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  seal  in  sub- 
stance, though  in  different  forms. 

The  word  seal  sometimes  signifies  an  instrument  for 
making  an  impression  upon  wax  or  some  other  substance; 
it  sometimes  means  the  impression  made  by  this  instru- 
ment ;  it  sometimes  signifies  that  confirmation  which  is 
imparted  by  this  impression ;  and  it  sometimes  denotes 
any  significant  act  by  which  confirmation  is  eff*ected 
even  without  a  visible  permanent  impression.  Ahab^had 
^Ti  implement  called  a  sea/;  Jezebel  made  the  impres- 
sion of  it  upon  the  letters  which  she  sent  to  the  elders 
and  to  the  nobles  ;  and  this  royal  attestation  or  confirm- 
ation procured  the  destruction  of  Naboth.(a:)  In  order 
to  bring  the  Jews  to  a  similar  end,  Haman  sent  through- 
out the  Persian  empire,  letters  "  sealed  with  the  kings 

(~)  1  Kings  XXI.  8. 


(     216     ) 

ringJ^^iy)  That  instrument  of  authority  which  these 
persons  obtained  for  the  worst  purposes,  the  Egyptian 
monarch  conferred  upon  his  favourite  Joseph,  for  the 
public  good  ;  "  And  Pharaoh  took  off  his  ring  from  his 
hand,  and  put  it  upon  Joseph's  hand.'^Cz)  So  Antiochus 
is  represented  as  giving  his  signet  (his  ring  in  the  Greek 
and  Latin,)  to  Philip  his  regent  ;(a)  and  the  dying  Alex- 
ander is  said  to  have  given  his  ring  to  Perdicas  for  the 
same  reason.  When  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  The 
seal  of  mine  Apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord,''(Z>)  he  does 
not  mean  that  they  are  the  instrument  or  the  impression^ 
but  the  attestation  or  confirmation  of  his  Apostleship. 
Dr.  Gill  considers  it  as  ''  alluding  to  the  sealing  of  deeds 
''  and  writings,  which  renders  them  authentic;  or  to  the 
''  sealing  of  letters,  confirming  the  truth  of  what  is 
''  therein  expressed.''  Christ  says,  ''  He  that  hath  re- 
''  ceived  his  testimony,  hath  set  to  his  seal  that  God  is 
^'  true."(c)  Dr.  Gill  tells  us  that  "  he  seals,  ratifies, 
^'  and  confirms^^  this  doctrine.  Sealing,  in  this  passage, 
is  certainly  used  in  the  sense  of  attestation.  It  moreover 
has  this  meaning  and  that  of  confirmation  where  Paul 
says  that  "  He  [Abraham]  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
"  cision  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he 
^^  had  yet  being  uncircumcised.(f/)  Here  Dr.  Gill  justly 
remarks  that  "  circumcision  was  a  seal^  not  for  secresy, 
"  but  for  certainty;  it  being  a  confirmation ^^^  &c.  This 

(y)  Esth.  iii.  12.  (2)  Gen.  xli.  42.  See  Gill. 

la)  1  Maccab.  vi.  14.  15.  So  Cyrus  is  said  to  have  "  shut  the  door  and 
sealed  it  with  the  kings  ^ii^net,"  (or  ringt  as  it  is  in  the  Greek  of  Bel  and 
the  Draj^on,  verses  11. 14.) 

(/))  1  Cor.  ix.  2.  See  Gill.  (c)  John  iii.  33.  See  Gill. 

(d)  Roin.  iv.  11.  See  Gill,  whom  we  have  formerly  quoted  more  tully 
on  this  passage. 


(     217     ) 

confirmation  or  attestation  is  what  we  mean  by  the  sub- 
stance of  the  seal ;  while  the  particular  impression  or 
significant  ceremony  is  called  tlie/orm  of  the  seal.  As 
the  form  is  arbitrary,  it  may  be  changed  indefinitely, 
while  the  substance  remains  the  same.  The  text  just 
now  quoted  shews  that  circumcision,  as  to  its  substance ^ 
is  an  attestation  of  the  righteousness  of  faith ;  that  is,  it 
is  a  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  : 
but  this  is  the  substance  of  baptism  also,  however  it  may 
differ  from  circumcision  in  respect  oiform  ;  and  for  this 
reason  those  who  have  received  Christian  baptism  are 
said,  in  the  Apocalypse,  to  have  ^^  the  seal  of  God  in 
their  foreheads/^  That  these  two  rites  are  one  and  the 
same  seal  in  substance,  though  in  different  forms,  can  be 
proved  from  Scripture. 

In  opposition  to  this,  my  Opponent  believes  that  bap- 
tism never  was  a  seal  at  all;  that  even  circumcision 
never  was  a  seal  to  any  but  Abraham;  and  that  the 
form  of  a  seal  is  essential  to  its  existence,  so  that  the  form 
cannot  be  changed  without  destroying  the  substance. 
His  reasoning  is  as  follows,  viz.  ^^  Was  not  circumcision 
^^  significant  of  something?  could  it  not  be  seen  and  ex- 
^^  amined  by  every  body  ?  and  what  did  it  say  ?  It  said 
''  '  Ia?n  a  Jew  of  the  seed  of  Abraham^  entitled  to  every 
"  '  thing  promised  my  father,  when  God  told  him 
'^  '  to  make  this  mark  xipon  me,^  Deface  this  mark  in 
"  the  flesh,  and  sprinkle  a  few  drops  of  water  upon  the 
"  face,  and  then  say,  it  is  the  same  seal  significant  of  the 

"  same  thing that  is,  this  watery  seal  can  be  seen  on 

"  the  flesh,  examined  by  every  body,  and  says.  What? — 

^•'  Just  what  circumcision  said, — '  I  am  a  JeW;  of  the  seed 
E  e 


(     218     ) 

"  ^  of  Abraham,  entitled  to  every  thing  promised  my 
''  '  father,  when  God  told  him  to  make  this  mark  upon 
'^  '  me ! !'     It  surely  lies,  if  it  tell  such  a  tale. 

"  A  seal,  Mr.  M^Calla  says,  is  a  confirmative  mark, 
^^  Now  who  ever  thought  that  water  left  a  confirmative 
^^  mark  on  the  forehead  of  a  child  ?  But  remember,  my 
^^  friends,  I  called  upon  my  Opponent  to  tell  us  where 
^^  baptism  is  called  a  seal.  No  where  I  say  in  the  bible. 
^^  to  presume  that  baptism  is  a  seal,  and  to  presume  that 
'^  it  is  substituted  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  that 
^^  the  seal  is  changed,  is  taking  too  much  liberty  in  an 
^^  argument.  One  presumption  might,  in  some  instances, 
"  be  tolerated,  but  it  is  too  presumptuous  to  demand 
^^  three,  nay  to  adopt  them  without  any  ceremony,  and 
^*  place  them  as  the  basis  of  an  argument. 

^^  I  deny  that  circumcision  was  ever  changed  into  any 
^^  thing — that  baptism  is  a  seal  of  any  covenant  in  the 
^^  legitimate  use  of  language  : — and  consequently  that 
'*'  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  And,  I  po- 
^^  sitively  say  that  Mr.  M^Calla  cannot  produce  one  text 
^^  in  the  Bible  in  proof  of  the  contrary. — I  say  again,  it 
^/  is  quite  too  presumptuous ,  to  presume  so  far  as  to  take 
^^  three  suppositions  as  facts  acknowledged,  and  place 
"  them  as  the  foundation  of  an  important  part  of  the 
^^  system.'' 

^^  And  after  all  that  has  been  said  of  circumcision  as 
^^  a  sealn  it  is  only  called  a  seal  once,  and  in  relation  to 
'^  one  circumstance,  in  the  life  of  one  individual.  It 
^'  never  was  a  seal  to  one  of  Adam's  race  in  the  same 
^^  sense,  and  for  the  same  purpose,  as  it  was  to  Abra- 
"  ham.     Mark  the  Apostle's  style — He  received  the 


(     219     ) 

^^  SIGN  of  circumcision^  this  was  its  common  import  to 
^^  all  the  Jews — he  received  the  sign,  its  common  name; 
^^  to  him  in  particular  a  seal;  of  what?  of  his  interest 
'^  in  the  covenant  ? — No,  this  he  had  guaranteed  by  the 
^'  veracity  of  God. — A  seal  of  what  ? — Of  the  righteous- 
^'  ness  of  that  faith — what  faith  ?  of  the  faith  which  he 
''  should  afterwards  have  ? — No,  no :  but  of  the  faith  he 
"  had. — When?  Sixteen  years  before  this  time  ;  when 
''  his  faith  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness :  and 
^'  twenty-four  years  before  this  time  he  believed  the 
'^  promise  of  God,  and  left  his  own  country  and  his  fa- 
''  ther's  house  in  the  obedience  of  faith.  The  whole 
'^  mystery  dissolves  at  the  touch  of  common  sense,  when 
''  it  is  simply  known,  that  Abraham  received  the  usual 
^^  sign  of  circumcision,  which  to  him  was  a  pledge  or 
''  mark  of  the  divine  acceptance  of  his  faith.'' 

My  Baptist  Opponent  is  unhappy  in  his  distinction 
between  signs  and  seals.  He  pretends  that  circumcision 
was  a  sign  both  to  Abraham  and  his  descendants,  but 
that  it  was  a  seal  to  Abraham  only,  and  not  to  one  of  his 
descendants.  It  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  this  is  one 
of  my  Opponent's  original  discoveries.  It  was  entirely 
unknown  even  to  Hezechius,  the  ancient  Greek  Glosso- 
grapher.  Of  two  significations  which  he  gives  to  the 
word  sign,  seal  is  one  :{a)  and  in  explaining  the  word 
seals,  he  says  that  they  are  ^^  those  signs  which  are  upon 
rings  and  clothes."(2r)  Harpocration  also,  in  his  Lexi- 
con, explains  the  one  word  by  the  other,  as  follows,  viz. 
^'  Signs,  so  they  call  seals.^^g)     Dr.  Gill;  who  quotes 


(      220      ) 

this  with  approbation^  says  that  the  text  in  question 
might  be  rendered  ^^  which  sign  was  a  seaV^  And 
Castallio's  New  Testament  actually  gives  it  this  render- 
ing.(A)  After  my  Opponent's  loud  call  to  you,  to  ^^mark 
^'  the  Apostle's  style,'^  in  this  passage,  you  will  be  sur- 
prised to  findj  that,  in  his  New  Testament,  he  has  fol- 
lowed Macknight,  in  a  translation  which  agrees  with 
our  views.  His  version  is  as  follows,  viz.  "  And  he 
received  the  mark  of  circumcision  as  a  seal,'^^  &c. 
Here  is  nothing  about  circumcision  being  a  sign  to  the 
Jews  in  general,  but  a  seal  to  Abraham  only.  This 
translation  informs  you  that  a  sign  is  a  mark  ;  and  he 
has  repeatedly  told  you  in  this  debate,  that  a  seal  is  a 
confirmative  mark.  Now  if,  according  to  my  Opponent's 
own  shewing,  a  sig7i  is  a  mark^  and  a  seal  is  a  mark^  and 
if  Abraham  received  the  sign  or  mark  of  circumcision 
AS  a  seal  or  mark  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  then 
where  is  my  Opponent's  distinction  between  signs  and 
seals?  It  is  surely  not  in  Dr.  Macknight,  whose  trans- 
lation he  has  copied  with  approbation  ;  for  the  Doctor 
confirms  my  interpretation,  in  his  version,  commentary, 
and  critical  note. 

But  some  Baptists  who  acknowledge  that  the  view  of 
my  Opponent  makes  a  distinction  without  a  difference, 
are  still  unwilling  to  admit  that  circumcision  was  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith  to  any  but  Abraham.  Yet 
the  reason  which  they  give  for  this  opinion,  is  not  only 
a  gratuitous  assumption,  but  is  in  manifest  opposition  to 
inspired  authority.     It  is  a  mere  assertion  that  outward 

(/i)  ac  circumcisioins  notam  accepit,  quae  sigilluin  esset,  &c. 


{     221      ) 

ordinances  cannot  be  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faitfi, 
and  that  nothing  less  than  Christ  and  the  Divine  Spirit 
can  be  this  seal.  The  greatest  man  among  them  speaks 
as  follows  ;  viz.  ^^ But  alas!  not  ordinances^  but  other 
"  things  more  valuable  than  they^  are  the  seals  of  the 
''  covenant^  and  of  believers ;  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the 
'^  seal^  and  the  only  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  by 
'^  which  its  promises  and  blessings  are  ratified  and  con- 
''  firmed  ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  earnest 
^'  pledge,  seal,  and  sealer  of  the  saints,  until  the  day 
'^  of  redemption.'^(f)  This  author  will  very  readily 
admit  that  justification  by  faith  is  a  blessing  which  be- 
lievers derive  from  the  covenant  of  grace  :  if  therefore, 
his  assertion  be  true,  that  ordinances  are  not  the  seals 
of  the  covenant  and  of  believers,  then  it  is  also  true 
that  ordinances  are  not  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith :  but  this,  as  we  observed,  is  in  manifest  opposition 
to  the  scriptures,  which  declare  that  Abraham  ^^re- 
"  ceived  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  right- 
"  eousness  of  faith. 

Some,  however,  admit  that  Abraham  received  this 
ordinance  as  a  seal,  but  deny  that  it  was  a  seal  in  the 
case  of  any  other  person  except  Abraham.  This  is  a 
sentiment,  and  a  mode  of  interpretation,  which,  I  sus- 
pect, neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  ever  thought  of,  until  it 
was  found  necessary  to  the  enemies  of  infant- baptism.  The 
opinion  of  the  Jews  may  be  ascertained  from  their  Tar- 
gum,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gill,  who  says  that  "  The  Apos- 
^'  tie  uses  the  word  seal  concerning  circumcision,  it  being 

(0  Gill  on  Rom.  iv.  11. 


(     222     ) 

^*  a  word  his  countrymen  made  use  of  when  they  spoke 
^'  of  it ;  thus,  paraphrasing  on  Cant.  iii.  8.  [comp.  iv. 
^'  12.]  they  say,  ^  every  one  of  them  was  sealed  with  the 
''  'seal  of  circumcision  upon  their  flesh,  as  Abraham 
'^  '  was  sealed  in  his  flesh.' ''  Moreover,  in  one  of  their 
Apocryphal  books,  the  Jewish  author  represents  God  as 
saying  to  him,  ^^  Behold  the  number  of  those  that  be 
sealed  in  the  feast  of  the  Lord.''(/)  This  feast  was  evi- 
dently the  Passover,  to  which  the  sealing  of  circumci- 
sion was  a  prerequisite ;  and  the  number  of  those  who 
were  thus  sealed,  is,  in  the  context,  said  to  be  "^ 
"  great  people  whom  I  could  not  number."  This  pas- 
sage is  referred  to  by  Dr.  Gill,  in  illustration  of  John's 
declaration  that  ^^  there  were  sealed  an  hundred  and 
''  forty  and  four  thousand  of  all  the  tribes  of  the  child- 
^^  ren  of  Israel. "(A)  The  context  of  this  passage  shews 
that  they  were  sealed  by  the  application  of  the  outward 
sign,  as  well  as  by  the  inward  grace.  In  perfect  conform- 
ity with  this  Jewish  usage,  inspired  and  uninspired,  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  in  a  passage  quoted  by  my  Oppo- 
nent against  Mr.  Walker,  repeatedly  calls  the  initiatory 
ordinance  of  the  church  a  seal  in  relation  to  all  who 
receive  it.  Among  the  Christian  Fathers  who  followed 
him  in  this  usage,  we  find  Epiphanius  saying,  ^^The 
^^  law  had  the  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  serving  for  a 
'^  time,  till  the  great  circumcision  came,  that  is,  Baptism; 
'^  which  circumcises  us  from  our  sins,  and  seals  us  unto 
^^  the  name  of  God."  In  the  same  strain,  we  find  Au- 
gustine drawing  a  parallel  between   Abraham  and  Cor- 

0)2  Esdrasii.  38.  Comp.  42.  (A)  Rev.  vii.  4  Comp.  S. 


(     223     ) 

nelias,  on  the  one  hand,  who  were  sealed  with  the  initia- 
tory ordinance,  after  they  had  believed ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  Isaac  and  Christian  infants,  who,  in  maturity, 
enjoy  that  righteousness  of  faith,  ^^  the  seal  whereof  had 
''  gone  before." 

But  to  confine  the  seal  to  Abraham  exclusively,  my 
Opponent  says,  ^^It  is  only  called  a  seal  once,  and  in  re- 
lation to  one  circumstance,  in  the  life  of  one  individual.'^ 
Does  he  mean  by  this,  that  we  are  not  to  believe  the 
Scriptures,  if  they  say  a  thing  only  once  ?  But  let  us 
try  such  reasoning  in  refutation  of  his  argument  for  fe- 
male communion;  and  see  whether  he  will  admit  its 
correctness.  In  his  debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  he  pro- 
fessed to  have  express  authority  for  female  communion. 
It  was  in  the  following  words,  viz.  "  For  there  was  a 
certain  disciple  there  named  Tabitha,^\l)  What  would 
he  do  with  an  antagonist  who  would  seriously  deny  the 
force  of  this  evidence,  and  pretend  to  refute  it,  by  say- 
ing that  ^^  female  discipleship  is  mentioned  only  oncef  and 
in  relation  to  one  circumstance,  in  the  life  of  one  indi- 
vidual ?''  I  will  tell  you  what  he  would  do  ;  he  would 
almost  dance  with  ecstacy  at  obtaining,  at  last,  one  solid, 
though  solitary  evidence  of  his  Antagonist's  insincerity, 
or  the  weakness  of  his  cause  ;  and  it  would  serve  him  for 
matter  of  declamation  in  almost  every  speech  throughout 
the  remainder  of  the  debate.  I  am  not  disposed  to  fur- 
nish him  with  such  provender,  although  he  has  gone  on 
many  a  foraging  excursion  in  pursuit  of  it.  Although 
the  case  of  Tabitha  is  not  an  express  command  for  female 

(/)  Acts  ix.  36.    See  his  Spurious  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  p.  69. 


(     224     ) 

communion^  nor  aay  better  evidence  for  it^  than  we  have 
for  infant-baptism,  yet  it  is  certainly  good  evidence, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  female  discipleship  is  men- 
tioned only  once,  and  concerning  only  one  person.  So, 
if  it  were  true  that  circumcision  is  called  a  seal  only 
once,  and  that  in  the  history  of  one  person,  this  is  so  far 
from  proving  that  it  is  a  seal  in  no  other  case,  that  it 
proves  the  very  contrary.  In  the  history  of  Adam,  it  is 
said  only  once,  and  concerning  one  individual,  that  he 
"  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  imaged 
Does  this  prove  that  Seth  was  the  only  descendant  of 
Adam  who  was  born  in  his  likeness,  and  after  his  image, 
or  does  it  not  rather  prove  the  contrary  ?  Circumcision 
did  not  become  a  seal  by  the  mere  fact  of  Abraham's  re- 
ceiving it,  but  "  he  received  the  mark  of  circumcision 
flw  a  seaV^  already  appointed  in  that  covenant  which  re- 
quired him  to  be  circumcised :  neither  did  his  reception 
of  it  make  it  cease  to  be  a  seal,  for  Isaac  and  Jacob  were 
as  much  interested  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  as 
Abraham  himself;  and  in  their  case,  and  in  the  cases  of 
all  others  to  whom  it  was  lawfully  administered,  whether 
infants  or  adults,  saints  or  sinners,  it  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith ;  that  is,  it  was  a  visible  attestation 
or  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith, 
and  not  by  works  ;  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  the  grace 
of  God,  through  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is 
not  true,  as  some  suppose,  that  this  ordinance  was  a  seal, 
only  when  administered  to  an  heir  of  heaven,  whether  in 
infancy  or  maturity :  the  word  of  God  is  as  true  when 
it  becomes  a  savour  of  death  unto  death,  as  when  it  is 
received  in  faith  :  so  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 


(     225     ) 

k  as  truly  sealed,  confirmed ,  or  attested  in  the  circum- 
cision of  Ishmael  as  of  Isaac,  of  Esau  as  of  Jacob.  It  is 
true  that  some  subjects  of  this  ordinance  have  the  inesti- 
mable advantage  of  having  the  inward  grace  accompany- 
ing the  outward  sign  ;  but  it  is  not  this  fact  which  makes 
it  a  SEAL :  for  if  its  significancy  depended  upon  the  cer- 
tainty of  grace  in  the  receiver,  it  would  be  an  empty  form 
to  all  but  the  searcher  of  hearts,  and  those  of  his  children 
who  have  attained  the  full  assurance  of  faith :  but  it  con- 
firms the  same  truth  to  the  weak  believer  as  to  the  strong ; 
and  it  attests  the  same  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith, 
to  the  unbeliever  as  to  the  believer ;  for  the  unbelief  of 
man  can  never  make  the  faith  of  God  of  none  effect,  or 
make  him  alter  his  plan  of  saving  sinners.  This  ordi- 
nance was  not  intended  to  seal  a  fact  but  a  doctrine :  it 
was  not  intended  to  declare  that  the  individual  receiver 
should  be  saved,  but  to  teach  that  if  he  be  saved,  it  must 
be  through  the  blood  and  righteousness  of  his  law-satis- 
fying Surety  ;  and  that  every  one  who  has  an  interest  in 
this  Divine  Redeemer,  whether  he  be  an  infant  or  adult, 
shall  be  saved. 

Although  circumcision  sealed  this  truth,  my  Oppo- 
nent insists  upon  it  that  baptism  cannot  be  a  seal  at  all, 
because  water  leaves  no  mark  behind  it.  He  trium- 
phantly asks,  ''  Now  who  ever  thought  that  water  left 
"  a  confirmative  mark  on  the  forehead  of  a  child  V^im) 
My  Opponent  forgets  that  the  rainbow  is  the  token  of 
the  Noachic  covenant,  and  that  the  word  seal  is  used 
not  only  for  a  visible  permanent  impression,  but  to  de- 


Cm)  Spur,  Deb.  with  me,  p.  204,  quoted  above. 

Ff 


(     226     ) 

note  *^  any  act  of  confirmation,"  as  the  Baptist  Lexi- 
cographer, Dr.  Allison,  says.   But  if  a  seal  must  mean  a 
visible  wound  and  a  permanent  mark  or  scar  made  in 
the  flesh  by  a  knife,  will  my  Opponent  be  so  good  as  to 
inform  us  what  mark  was  made  by  the  angels,  when  they 
''  sealed  the  servants  of  our  God  in  their  foreheads?'' 
Dr.  Gill  thinks  that  these  ^^  servants  of  our  God"  are  the 
Waldenses  and  Albigenses.     Now  although  it  was  mali- 
ciously said  against  them,  that  their  children  were  born 
with  wattles  hanging  to  their  throats,  it  was  never  even 
suspected  that  they  took  a  knife,  and  tattooed  their  child- 
ren in  the  face,  after  the  manner  of  the  heathen.     I  hope 
however,  in  due  time,    to  shew  that  they  sealed  the 
foreheads  of  their  children  by  that  "  act  of  coniirma- 
^'  tion"  which  we  call  Christian  baptism.     This  inter- 
pretation is  rather  confirmed  than  confuted  by  the  same 
Apostle's  declaration  that  "  A  Lamb  stood  on  the  mount 
"  Sion,  and  with  him  an  hundred  forty  and  four  thou- 
'^  sand,  having  his  Father's  name  written  in  their  fore- 
''  heads."(w)     When  I  say  that  this  inscription  is  a  seal, 
I  am  in  no  danger  of  contradiction  from  my  Opponent, 
who  has  substituted  the  word  inscription  for  the  word 
seal^  in  his  Translation  of  the  New  Testament.    Where 
our  bible  says  ''  The  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure^ 
"  having  this    sea/,"    my    Opponent's  Version    says, 
f '  The  foundation  of  God  standeth  firm,  having  this  in- 
'^  scription."     Now  as  this  seal  or  inscription  was  put 
upon  this  foundation  without  any  literal  visible  mark, 
so  was  the  name  of  the  Lamb's  Father  sealed  or  inscrib- 

(«)  Rev.  vii.  3,  xiv,  1. 


(     227     ) 

ed  upon  his  people's  foreheads  without  a  permanent 
mark.  But  my  Opponent  may  object,  that  in  baptism, 
not  the  name  of  the  Father  only,  but  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  written  on 
his  people.  This  suggests  the  fact  that  some  very  an- 
cient Manuscripts  had  the  names  of  these  three  persons, 
if  we  may  believe  the  authors  of  the  Ethiopic  Version, 
as  reported  by  Dr.  Gill.  The  same  Baptist  commenta- 
tor tells  us  that  ^^  The  Alexandrian  copy,  the  Complu- 
^'  tensian  edition,  the  Vulgate  Latin,  Syriac,  and  Ara- 
^^  bic  versions,  read,  '  Having  his  name  [the  Lamb's] 
^^  ^  and  his  Fathers  name  written  in  their  foreheads.' " 
This  reading  Griesbach  has  adopted.  It  is,  however, 
unnecessary  to  our  purpose,  because,  in  relation  to  bap- 
tism, the  bible  elsewhere  mentions  the  name  of  only  one 
person,  when  all  are  evidently  implied  by  the  writer, 
and  were  expressed  in  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nance, (o) 

These  various  readings  handed  down  by  transcribers 
and  translators  shew  the  understanding  of  the  ancient 
church,  in  relation  to  the  question  whether  baptism  is  a 
seal.  My  Opponent  himself  has  suggested  an  additional 
evidence  of  this  sort,  which  is  very  striking  indeed.  In 
his  debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  he  made  very  pompous 
use  of  the  Primate's  Translation  of  the  Apostolical 
Fathers.  He  professed  to  quote  largely  from  the 
writings  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias^  w^ho,  (as  he  inform- 
ed the  audience,)  "  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  the 
''  Hermasj  of  whom  Paul  speaks,"  in  his  Epistle  to 

(o)  Acts  xix.  5. 


(     228     ) 

the  Romans. (p)  If  this  be  so,  he  must  have  caught  the 
sentiments  and  language  of  the  Apostles  in  relation  to 
seals.  Certain  it  is,  that  he  mentions  the  word,  with  as 
much  familiarity  and  rapidity  of  repetition,  as  I  have 
done  in  this  conference.  In  the  17th  Section  of  his  9th 
Similitude,  he  speaks  much  like  the  Apostle  John  when 
foretelling  that  the  name  of  the  [Lamb  and  of  his]  Fa- 
ther should  be  inscribed  or  sealed  upon  his  people.  Her- 
mas  says,  '^  All  the  nations  which  are  under  heaven, 
^^  have  heard  and  believed  in  the  same  one  name  of  the 
''  Son  of  God  by  whom  they  are  called ;  wherefore, 
^^  having  received  his  seal,  they  have  all  been  made 
^^  partakers  of  the  same  understanding  and  knowledge, 
^'  and  their  faith  and  charity  have  been  the  same.'' 
When  Hermas  speaks  of  receiving  the  seal  of  the  Son 
of  God,  in  being  called  by  his  name,  does  he,  or  does  he 
not,  mean  that  baptism y  which  initiates  into  the  church, 
and  gives  us  the  name  of  Christian  ?  This  question  is 
fully  answered,  in  the  preceding  Section,  in  which, 
among  seven  repetitions  of  this  word,  Hermas  says  ex- 
pressly, '^  *N*ow  that  SEAL  is  the  water  of  baptism." 
Here  we  have  my  Opponent's  own  Author,  whom  he 
has  introduced  to  you,  as  a  personal  friend  and  ac- 
quaintance of  the  Apostle  PauK  confirming  our  view  of 
that  seal  of  God,  that  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
or  as  Hermas  would  have  it,  that  seal  of  "  understanding 
'^  and  knowledge,"  of  "  faith  and  charity,"  which 
takes  the  place  of  circumcision  :  '^  Now  that  seal  is  the 
"  water  of  baptism  P 

(/O  Horn.  xvi.  14.  See  Sp»ir.  Deb.  with  Mr,  Walker.  \k  10^ 


(     229     ) 

Although  circumcision  is  called  a  sealy  and  baptism  is 
called  a  seal,  yet  the  proposition  now  under  discussion, 
contends  that  they  are  not  radically  two  different  seals, 
but  different /orm^  of  the  same  seal.  It  is  substantially 
the  same  now,  that  it  was  in  the  Old  Testament  church. 
Among  the  Jews,  ''  The  rite  of  circumcision  was  no 
more  than  the  form  in  which  the  seal  was  applied ;" 
as  Dr.  Mason  has  correctly  remarked.  Much  of  the 
force  of  my  Opponent's  reasoning  against  this  doctrine, 
may  be  found  in  his  polite,  dignified,  argumentative,  and 
eloquent  explosion  against  this  remark  of  Dr.  Mason's. 
On  it  he  speaks  as  follows,  viz.  '^  What  sophistry ! 
'^  What  disregard  to  common  sense !  What  an  insult  to 
''  the  human  understanding !  The  rite  of  circumcision  ! 
"  What  was  that  ?  the  making  of  a  mark  in  the  flesh. 
^'  The  rite  was  the  form  of  the  seal !  The  making  of 
'^  the  mark  was  the  mark  of  the  '  confirmative  mark  UP 
^'  When  the  varnish  is  washed  off  this  sophistry,  such 
^^  is  its  meaning — such  is  its  naked  deformity.  The 
^^  rite  of  circumcision  was  circumcision  itself,  accord- 
''  ing  to  every  body's  views  of  rites.  The/orm  of  cir- 
''  cumcision,  was  the  form  of  the  rite.  Take  away 
''  the  form  of  a  mark  or  of  a  seal,  and  then  shew  it  to 
^*  us.  It  is  invisible.  Hence  the  whole  distinction  is 
^'  absurd. "(g') 

This  desperate  fluttering  of  my  Opponent  is  intro- 
duced, not  to  follow  him  in  every  dash  or  splash  which 
he  may  make,  but  to  call  your  attention  to  his  general 
course.     In  this  rhapsody,  as  well  as  others  which  were 

(.;)  Spur.  Deb.  with  me.  p.  21/. 


(     230     ) 

noticed  a  while  ago,  his  object  is,  evidently,  to  deny 
that  Xh^form  and  the  substance  of  a  seal  may  differ  from 
each  other,  and  that  a  seal  may  change  its  form  and  re- 
tain its  substance.  It  is  in  relation  to  this  that  he  says, 
"  The  whole  distinction  is  absurd^  According  to  him 
they  are  inseparable :  where  the  one  is  found,  there  is 
the  other ;  and  where  the  one  is  not,  there  the  other  is 
wanting.  This  would  very  readily  decide  the  contro- 
versy between  king  Charles  the  First  and  his  Parliament. 
According  to  this  doctrine,  while  the  Parliament  held 
the  seal  of  state,  they  were  invested  with  the  sovereign- 
ty ;  and  Lord  Clarendon  restored  the  sovereignty  to  the 
king,  by  stealing  the  seal  and  taking  it  to  him.  This 
view  of  the  subject,  however,  did  not  suit  the  religion  or 
the  politics  of  either  party  in  that  momentous  struggle. 
While  the  Parliament  had  the  seal,  the  royalists  es- 
teemed them  as  having  th^form,  but  the  king  as  having 
the  substance  :  so  when  the  king  obtained  the  seal,  the 
enemies  of  Toryism  and  of  the  Royal  Frerogative,  con- 
sidered the  king  as  having  the  form,  but  the  Parliament 
the  substance.  My  Opponent  very  pertly  says  ^^the 
rite  [or/orm]  of  circumcision  was  circumcision  itself.'^ 
Very  well ;  the  Arabs  and  apostate  Jews  of  the  present 
day  have  Xhisform.  Again  he  tells  us  what  is  its  sub- 
stance or  signification.  According  to  him  "  it  said,  ^I 
am  a  Jew  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  entitled  to  every 
thing  promised  my  Father,  when  God  told  him  to  make 
this  mark  upon  me.^ ''  Does  my  Opponent  consider 
this  the  language  of  the  circumcision  of  the  Arabs  and 
of  the  excommunicated  Jews  of  the  present  day  ?  If  not, 
then  we  have  the  rite  distinct  from  the  signification  ; 


(     231      ) 

that  is^  we  have  the  form  without  the  substance.  In 
sacred  and  profane  antiquity  we  find  seals  affixed  to  sol- 
diers and  servants.  The  form  of  their  devices  would 
often  doubtless  differ^  far  more  than  the  bald  eagle  differs 
from  the  American  turkey,  which  Dr.  Franklin  proposed 
as  a  substitute  for  the  bird  of  prey,  on  the  seal  of  the 
United  States ;  and  would  differ  more  than  a  cross  marky 
formerly  appointed  by  our  government,  as  a  seal  for 
bonds  and  notes,  differs  from  a  circular  mark,  which,  as 
Mr.  Walker  informed  my  Opponent,  they  have  lately 
ordained  as  a  substitute. (r)  Besides  this  difference  in 
the  figure  of  the  seal  affixed  to  soldiers  and  servants, 
there  was  a  difference  in  the  place  upon  which  it  was 
impressed.  The  command  of  God  by  Ezekiel,  to  ''  set 
a  mark  upon  the  foreheads'^  of  his  afflicted  followers, 
Dr.  Gill  thinks  to  allude  probably  "  to  the  marking  of 
"  servants  in  their  foreheads,  by  which  they  were  known 
"  who  they  belonged  to.''  For  the  word  mark  in  this 
text,  the  Septuagint  and  Tremellius  read  sign,  which, 
either  in  Greek  or  Latin,'  is  equivalent  to  seal.  In  allu- 
sion to  the  same  custom  substantially,  Calasio  translates 
Job  xxxvii,  7,  "  He  shall  seal  all  men  in  the  handP 
With  this  translation  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  Latin 
agree.  With  the  same  allusion,  Blanco  White  says  that 
the  Council  of  Trent  "  has  converted  the  sacrament  of 
''  Baptism  into  an  indelible  6r«nc/ of  slavery. "(5)  Now 
I  would  propound  a  few  questions.  Was  the  substance 
of  an  ancient  military  seal  affected,  by  changing  its  de- 
vice from  a  beast  to  a  bird  ?     Was  the  substance  of  a 

(r)  See  Mr.  Walker's  Reply,  p.  156. 
(&•)  In  his  5  th  Letter  agamst  Popery. 


(     232     ) 

Princess  seal  affected  by  writing  his  name  on  the  hands 
of  one  generation  of  subjects  or  servants,  and  on  the/ore- 
heads  of  their  children  ?  Was  the  substance  of  the  seal 
affected  by  changing  the  letters  from  square  to  round,  or 
the  words  from  Hebrew  to  Samaritan,  or  the  ink  from 
red  to  green  ?  Has  the  change  of  our  seal  from  a  cross 
mark  to  a  circular  mark  affected  those  bonds  and  notes 
to  which  it  is  affixed  ?  Would  the  substance  of  our  Fe- 
deral seal  be  affected  by  undergoing  the  change  which 
Dr.  Franklin  recommended  ?  Would  Popish  baptism  be 
either  more  or  less  a  brand  of  slavery,  by  being  adminis- 
tered to  the  head,  the  hands,  or  the  feet,  in  the  mode  of 
aspersion,  affusion,  ablution  or  immersion?  And  is  it  not 
a  fact  that  the  descendants  of  Ishmael  and  Isaac  have,  at 
this  day,  the  form  of  circumcision  without  the  sub- 
stance ?  What  is  there,  then,  so  extravagant  in  the  po- 
sition that  the  form  and  the  substance  of  a  seal  are  dis- 
tinct things  ?  and  what  is  there  so  incredible  in  the  doc- 
trine, that  a  God  of  sovereignty  and  mercy,  may,  in  re- 
spect of  form^  change  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church 
from  blood  to  water ^  and  from  the  foot  to  \\{^  forehead^ 
while  the  substance  remains  the  same  ? 

A  little  unbiassed  reflection  will  shew  an  intelligent 
hearer  that  it  is  much  more  to  our  purpose  to  prove  a 
substantial  identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  seals/ 
than  to  prove  their  fonnal  identity.  The  substance  is 
incalculably  more  important  than  the  form.  The  cir- 
cumcision of  the  Samaritans  and  Ishmaelites  had  the 
for7n  of  the  Jewish  seal;  but  because  it  lacked  the  sub- 
stance, it  was  no  seal  at  all.  Unitarian  baptism  has  some- 
times the  forfn  of  Christian  baptism ;  but  because  they 


(     233     ) 

deny  justification  by  faith  in  the  vicarious  satisfaction, 
and  the  imputed  righteousness  of  a  Divine  Redeemer, 
they  lack  the  substance  of  the  Christian  seal ;  and  the 
form  without  the  subsiayice  is  no  more  a  true  seal  than 
a  counterfeit  is  true  coin. 

My  evidence  in  favour  of  the  sigillistical  identity  of 
Jewish  circumcision  and  Christian  baptism,  shall  be 
drawn  from  the  Scriptures,  which  shew  their  common 
use  and  signification  ;  and  which  substitute  the  name  of 
one  form  for  the  other. 

POINT  I. 

7%e  use  and  signification  of  Jewish  Circumcision  and 
Christian  Baptism^  will  shew  that  they  are  the  same 
SEAL  in  SUBSTANCE,  though  in  different  forms. 

This  will  appear  from  three  particulars ;  that  they 
are  both  initiatory  seals,  that  they  are  both  signs  of 
justification,  and  both  signs  and  means  of  sanctifca- 
tion. 

I.  They  are  both  initiatory  seals.  If  you  and  I 
have  heard  alike,  you  have  understood  my  Opponent  as 
denying  this  position  in  relation  to  either  of  these  ordi- 
nances. To  pass  over  it,  therefore,  in  silence,  would 
not  be  proper,  howsoever  generally  its  truth  may  be  re- 
ceived. 

1.  Circumcision  was  the  seal  of  initiation  to  the 
Jewish  church.  On  this  item,  I  had  prepared  several 
texts  to  lay  before  you :  but  it  is  really  too  plain  to  jus- 
tify me  in  occupying  your  time.  Is  there  one  of  you 
who  doubts  that  a  Gentile  was  esteemed  an  alien  until  he 
Gg 


{     234     ) 

was  circumcised?  and  is  there  one  who  doubts^  that 
from  the  moment  of  his  circumcision  he  was  esteemed  a 
member  ?  And  if  there  be  any  one  who  is  stumbled  by 
Gen.  xvii.  14,  under  the  apprehension  that  a  native  Jew 
may  be  a  member  of  the  church  without  circumcision,  I 
would  observe  that  that  passage  itself  is  evidently  in- 
tended to  contradict  it;  and  that  the  word  there  ren- 
dered cut  off,  cannot,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
mean  exclusion  from  privileges  already  enjoyed,  but 
preclusion  from  privileges  which  might  hereafter  be  en- 
joyed ;  as  the  same  word  in  the  Hebrew  and  in  the  Mar- 
ginal translation  of  Joshua  ix.  23,  is  used  to  denote  pre- 
clusion from  that  bondage  on  which  the  subjects  had  not 
yet  entered.  If  any  one,  after  this,  should  still  ask, 
^^  How  can  a  child  be  cut  off  from  the  church  before  he 
is  a  member  ?''  I  would  ask,  ^'  How  can  a  child  be  deli- 
vered from  sheol  before  he  is  dead  ?'^  and  yet  the  Pro- 
verb says  '^  Thou  shalt  beat  him  with  the  rod,  and  shalt 
deliver  his  soul  from  hell.^'(if)  Parental  duty  is  here  re- 
presented as  a  means  of  delivering,  that  is,  oi preventing 
the  child  from  going  to  hell :  so  in  the  other  case,  pa- 
rental neglect  is  represented  as  a  means  of  cutting  off, 
that  is,  o{  preventing  the  child  from  being  a  church 
member. 

2.  Baptism  is  the  seal  of  initiation  to  the  Christian 
church.  With  due  deference  to  those  who  think  other- 
wise, I  would  humbly  maintain  the  same  doctrine,  on 
this  item,  as  on  the  last.  I  do  not  object  to  saying  that 
children  are  born  in  the  church ;  it  is  a  language  which 

(0  Prov.  xxiii.  14.     Comp.  Ps.  xxx.  3.  Ixxxvi.  13. 


(     235      ) 

I  use  myself:  but  then  it  is  used  in  a  general  and  familiar, 
and  not  in  a  technical  sense  ;  or  it  contemplates  the  un- 
sealed interest  which  they  may  have  in  the  promises  of 
God,  and  not  t\ie\Y  formal  church-membership.  As  the 
holiness  of  the  one  unbelieving  parent,  amounts  to  no- 
thing more  than  a  removal  of  an  Old  Testament  obstacle 
to  the  initiation  of  the  child,  so  the  holiness  of  the  child 
is  understood  as  entitling  him  tg  initiation.  In  relation 
both  to  the  visible  and  invisible  church,  I  much  like 
the  ancient  maxim,  "  Christiani  non  nascimur  sed 
^'  FiMus  ;  We  are  not  born  but  made  Christia?2S/^  As 
the  inward  graces  of  religion  distinguish  the  invisible 
church  from  the  world  ;  so  do  the  outward  sacraments 
^^ pitta  visible  difference  betiaeen  those  that  belong  unto 
'^  the  church,  and  the  rest  of  the  worldJ^iu)  All  that 
Booth  has  quoted  from  ancient  fathers  and  worthies,  to 
shew  the  necessity  of  Baptism  as  a  prerequisite  for  the 
Eucharist,  presupposes  that  baptism  is  the  seal  of  initia- 
tion. Accordingly,  he  tells  us,  in  support  of  his  own 
views,  that  ^^  Theological  writers  have  often  called  bap- 
^'  tism,  the  sacrament  of  re  generation ,  or  of  initiation  ; 
^^  and  the  Lord's  supper,  the  sacrament  oi  nutrition, ^\v) 
My  Opponent  himself  preaches  this  ddctrine,  when 
it  seems  likely  to  answer  his  purpose.  His  ^'  Fourth 
"  reason  for  asserting'^  ^'  a  radical  difference  between 
''  the  two  religions  and  the  two  churches  [of  the  Old  and 
^'  New  Testaments,]  is  found  in  the  terms  of  admission 
''  into  this  new  kingdom.'^  Under  this  head,  he  says, 
^'  Nicodemus,  ye  must  be  born  again  5  though  sprung 

{u)  Westminister  Confession,  Chap.  27,  Sect.  1. 
{v)  Booth.  Apology,  pp.  11.  48. 


(     236     ) 

^^  from  Abraham,  ye  must  be  born  again  ;  yes  and  ofwa- 
''  ter  toO;  or  into  Messiah's  realm  you'll  never  enter ^{w) 
According  to  this,  a  man  must  be  horn  again  oficater, 
as  a  term  of  admission  into,  as  the  way  by  which  he 
shall  enter,  Christ's  ecclesiastical  kingdom  ;  that  is,  Bap- 
tism is  the  way  of  initiation  into  the  Christian  church. 
After  this  I  need  not  waste  your  time  with  a  formal  refu- 
tation of  his  quibbles  against  this  doctrine,  nor  with  an 
exposure  of  the  impious  solecism  of  his  Master  Robin- 
son, who  "  took  baptism  not  for  a  church  ordinance, 
''  but  for  a  profession  of  Christianity  at  large  ! !'' 

Although  this  Infidel  writer  has  been  long  circulated 
among  you  by  the  deluded  Baptist  preachers  of  our 
country,  he  has  perhaps  never  yet  persuaded  you  that 
baptism  is  not  a  church  ordinance.  In  your  faith  and 
practice,  you  still  treat  baptism  as  the  initiating  church 
ordinance ;  and  this  faith  and  practice  can  be  traced 
through  the  line  of  your  fore-fathers,  even  up  to  their 
primitive  days  in  Germany.  According  to  Staffer, 
''  Baptism  is,  in  their  view,  a  sign  of  initiation  to  the 
*^  true  church,  and  of  confession."  ^^They  initiated 
"  by  ana-baptism,  those  whom  they  received  as  citi- 
^'  zens  of  their  kingdom."!^) 

II.  They  are  both  signs  of  pardon  and  jus- 
tification. These  benefits  always  presuppose  or  infer 
each  other.  Like  the  foreknowledge  and  foreordination 
of  God,  they  are  distinct,  but  not  separate.  Wherever, 

(w)  Spur.  Deb.  with  mc",  p.  197.  198. 

{k)  Stapfer's  Institutions.  Chap.  18.  Sect.  35.  10. ^^"  baptismus, 

ex  mente  illorum,   sit  signum  initiationis  ad  veram  ecclesiam,  et  con- 

fessionis." *'  cos  quos  tancjuam  regni  sui  pives  assuinebaiit,  anabap- 

t-ismoinitiabant.**  '  \ 


(     237      ) 

therefore,   I  find  the  one  I  shall  take  the  other  for 
granted. 

1.  Circumcision  zs  a  sign  of  pardon  and  justifica- 
tion. This  is  plainly  proved  by  Rom.  iv.  11,  so  often 
quoted  already  ;  which  Dr.  Gill  considers  as  compre- 
hending pardon  along  with  justification :  for  he  says 
that  "  circumcision  was  a  sign  of  Christ,  as  all  the 
''  ceremonies  of  the  law  were,  and  of  the  shedding  of 
''  his  blood,  to  cleanse  from  all  sin,  original  and  actual^ 
^^and  also  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart;  and  was, 
'^  moreover,  a  seat  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, ^^  He 
says  that  "  The  Apostle  explains  it  to  be  a  seal,  or 
*^  what  gave  assurance  to  Abraham,  or  was  a  sure  token 
''  to  him,  that  righteousness  would  be  wrought  out  by 
^'  Christ,  by  his  obedience,  and  the  shedding  of  his 
"  blood,  which  is  received  by  faith  ;  and  that  this  was 
''  imputed  to  him,^'  &c.(y) 

2.  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  pardon  and  justification, 
'^  Then  Peter  said  unto  them.  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
^'  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, /or  the 
^^  remission  of  sins.'^  But  Paul  tells  us  that  God  hath  set 
forth  Christ  to  be  a  propitiation  ^^  to  declare  his  right- 
^^  eousness,  for  the  remission  of  sins,^'  ^^  through  faith  in 
^'  his  blood  ;''  and  the  end  of  this  was  ^^  that  he  might 
"  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth.^'(^) 

III.  They  are  both  signs  and  means  oe  sanc- 
TiFicATiON.  The  ordinances  as  well  as  the  oracles  of 
God,  are  intended  as  means  of  grace.  It  does  not  mili- 
tate against  this  position  in  respect  of  either,  that  they 

(t/)  Gill  on  Gen.  xvii»  11.  (z)  Acts  il  38,  Rom.  iii.  25.  26, 


(     238     ) 

are  both  sometimes  a  savour  of  death  unto  death.  It  is 
sovereign  grace  which  makes  the  gospel  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  ;  and  this  same  grace  often  connects 
the  outward  with  the  inward  circumcision ;  the  out- 
ward washing  of  regeneration  with  the  inward  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  so  that  the  infant  is,  at  the  same 
moment,  circumcised  in  flesh  and  heart,  and  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit. 

1.  Circumcision  is  a  sign  and  means  of  sanctijica' 
Hon,     ^^And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine 
''  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy 
'^  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that 
^'  thou  mayest  live.'^(«)     On  this  subject  my  Opponent 
speaks  as  follows,  viz.  "  Was  circumcision  a  sign  of  the 
^'  circumcision  of  the  heart  to  the  whole  Jewish  nation 
^^  that  fell  in  the  wilderness  ?     Was  it  the  sign  of  the 
^^  circumcision  of  the  heart  of  one  of  Abraham's  de- 
^'  scendants?  No,  not  one.     Do,  Mr.  M^Calla,  stop  and 
^^  prove  this  assertion  if  you  can — that  circumcision  was 
f^  a  sign  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart.     Don't  as- 
^'  sume  every  thing,  don't  beg  every  question.     Have 
f^  some  respect  to  your  hearers,  and  to  the  reputation  of 
^^  your   own    intellect."(c)      This  declamation    of  my 
Baptist  Opponent  shews  that  pride  of  intellect  some- 
times makes  a  man  wise  above  what  is  written.     In  re- 
lation to  many  of  Abraham's  descendants,  it  is  written, 
^^  He  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly;  and  circumcision 
"  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  let- 
^^  ter."     In  relation  not  only  to  Abraham,  but  to  his  de- 

(a)  Deut.  XXX.  6.  Comp.  x.  16. 

(e)  Spurious  Debate  with  hic.  pp.  204.  205.  226. 


(     239     ) 

scendants,  Dr.  Gill  says,  "  The  only  true  circumcision  is 
''  internal,  spiritual,  and  in  the  heart."  And  he  expressly 
says  that  the  ^'  circumcision  of  the  flesh  was  typical  of 
"  this/'  and  again,  that  it  was  "  an  emblem  of  spiritual 
^'  circumcision,  or  circumcision  of  the  heart.''(/)  Now 
it  will  not  do  to  answer  this,  by  begging  our  w^orthy  and 
eminent  Baptist  writer  to  have  some  respect  to  his  read- 
ers^ and  to  the  reputation  of  his  own  intellect, 

2.  Baptism  is  a  sign  and  means  of  sanctif  cation* 
Here  the  primitive  Anabaptists  of  Germany  do  not  agree 
with  me  as  they  did  in  a  former  case :  but  they  were 
consistent  enough  to  reject  the  scriptures  also  from  being 
a  means  of  grace.  Their  doctrine,  according  to  Staf- 
fer, was  as  follows  viz.  ^^  And  if  perseverance  depend 
^^  upon  man,  nor  is  there  need  of  divine  assistance, 
^^  hence  neither  is  there  need  of  signs  and  seals  of  seal- 
'^  ing  grace  ;[b)  whence  they  hold  that  the  sacraments 
^*  are  only  signs  of  our  confession.  And  since  they  who 
''  have  attained  the  highest  degree  of  perfection  and 
'^  sanctity,  no  longer  stand  in  need  of  the  means  of 
"  grace,  hence  they  do  not  highly  esteem  the  use  of  the 
^'  sacred  scripture. '^  In  opposition  to  this  erroneous 
doctrine  my  Opponent  quotes  Peter,  who  says,  "  Bap- 
"  tism  does  also  now  save  us,  by  the  resurrection  of 
"Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead.''(60  To  this  he  adds 
several  appropriate  authorities,  to  some  of  which  I  have 
already  alluded.     By  this  I  do  not  mean  to  agree  with 


(/)  See  Gill  on  Gen.  xvli.  11.  Rom.  iv.  11.  iii,  1.  ii.  29. 
\b)  Hinc  ncc  gratiic  obsiguantis  signis  et  aigiilia  opus  est.    Stapfer's  In- 
stitutions. Chap.  18.  Sect.  oO.  31. 
(c)  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 


(     240     ) 

my  Opponent,  in  considering  baptism  more  important 
than  faith.  He  might  as  well  say  that  sacrifice  was 
better  than  obedience.  This  error  of  his,  and  the  op- 
posite one  of  his  forefathers,  both  alike  flow  from  igno- 
rance of  true  religion. 

POIIVT  II. 

The  substitution  of  the  name  of  one  form  for  the  other, 
proves  that  their  substance  is  the  same. 

On  this  subject  I  would  solicit  your  attention  to 
two  verses;  one  of  which  has  very  often  passed  under 
your  review.  "  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumci- 
^'  sion,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  which  he 
^'  had  yet  being  uncircumcised  :  that  he  might  be  the 
^^  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  cir- 
'^  cumcised  ;  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto 
''  them  also  :  and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who 
^^  are  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  also  walk  in  the 
^^  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he 
^'  had  being  yet  uncircumcised. "(c?)  By  the  consent  of 
all  parties,  this  passage  represents  Abraham  as  the  father 
of  God's  people,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles.  Here 
the  Jews  are  not  represented  as  believers  and  the  Gentiles 
.18  unbelievers;  both  have  the  same 'faith,  because  the 
faith  of  the  church  has  undergone  no  change :  but  the 
Jews  are  represented  as  circumcised,  and  the  Gentiles  as 
uncircumcised,  altho'  Abraham  is  the  Father  of  circum- 
cision to  both  5  because,  though  both  have,  substantially, 

{d)  Rom.  iv,  11.  12. 


(     241     ) 

the  same  seal,  they  have  not  the  same/orm  of  the  seaL 
As  the  use  of  the  abstract  for  the  concrete  is  a  common 
Hebraismy  we  are  here  to  understand  ''  the  father  of  the 
circumcision^^  to  mean  ^^the  father  of  the  circumcised,^^ 
This  will  preserve  the  antithetical  relation  of  the  two 
aspects  in  which  Abraham's  character  is  here  presented. 
One  is,  that  he  was  the  father  of  the  uncircumcised 
believers  ;  another  is,  that  he  was  the  father  of  the  cir- 
cumcised. The  sense  of  one  will  illustrate  the  other. 
Dr.  Gill  says  that  the  first  means  that  he  was  the  father 
''  of  them  AS  they  were  believers/'  whether  they  were 
Jews  or  Gentiles.  The  meaning  of  the  second,  then, 
must  be  that  he  is  the  father  of  the  circumcision  as  they 
were  circumcised)  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  This  is 
the  plain  meaning  of  the  passage.  The  Gentile  church 
is  evidently  represented  as  circumcised  in  one  sense, 
and  as  uncircumcised  in  another  sense.  The  two  cannot 
be  reconciled  on  any  other  principle,  than  that  the  sub- 
stance of  circumcision  remains  under  the/orm  of  bap- 
tism after  the  ancient /on??  of  the  sealh  abolished. 

2.  Paul  says,  "  Beware  of  dogs,  beware  of  evil  work- 
"  ers,  beware  of  the  concision  :  for  we  are  the  circum- 
^^  cision,  which  worship  God  in  the  Spirit,  and  rejoice 
*^  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh,  (e) 
In  this  passage,  as  in  the  former,  the  noun  is  used  for  a 
participle ;  it  means  ^^  we  are  the  circumcised.''  Why 
are  Christians  said  to  be  circumcised  ?  It  must  be,  be- 
cause they  have  received  outward^  or  inivard  circum- 
cision, or  botJi,     But  my  Opponent  denies  that  it  ever 

(e)  Phill.  iii.  2.  3. 

Hh 


(    242    ) 


relates  to  inward  circumcision.  He  says,  '^Wasittbe 
^'  sign  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart  of  one  of  Abra- 
^^  braham's  descendants  ?  No,  not  one/^  Then,  of 
course,  the  word  here  must  mean  external  circumcision. 
But  it  cannot  mean  that  form  of  it  which  the  Jews  prac- 
tised ;  for  that  is  here  called,  by  way  of  contempt,  con- 
eision^  in  allusion  to  the  savage  and  cruel  manner  in 
which  the  heathen  cut  their  flesh  :  it  must,  therefore, 
mean  some  Christian  ordinance  which,  while  it  does  not 
wound  the  flesh,  is  substantially  the  same  with  Jewish 
circumcision,  in  being  a  seal  of  initiation,  and  a  sign  of 
justification  and  sanctification.  This  ordinance  we  have 
shewn  to  be  Christian  Baptism.  To  this  the  text  evi- 
dently alludes  ;  while  it  certainly  does  not  exclude,  but 
primarily  intends  that  spiritual  circumcision,  the  exist- 
ence of  which  my  Opponent  is  unwilling  to  r  dmit. 

3»  "  Also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision 
"  made  without  hands,  in  putting  oiF  the  body  of  the 
''  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Chnst,  buried 
^'  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with 
^^  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who 
''  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.'^(/)  Here  also  we  find 
circumcision  in  the  Christian  church.  Yet  it  was  not 
Jewish  circumcision,  nor  that  Judaizing  circumcision 
which  the  Ebionites  practised  ;  but  it  is  said  to  be  '^  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,''  or  Christian  circumcision. 
Now  if  my  Opponent  be  correct  in  denying  that  there 
is  any  inward  circumcision,  and  if  he  be  correct  in  say- 
ing that  water-baptism  is  here  intended,  thea  we  are 

(/)  Col.  iL  11.  12. 


(     243     ) 

taught  by  this  passage,  that  there  is  an  external  circum- 
cision, which  is  not  after  the  Jewish,  but  the  Christian 
form  ;  and  that  this  Christian  form  of  circumcision  is, 
"  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism,^'  as  it  is  correctly 
translated.  The  Greek  of  Oriesbach,  and  the  Latin  of 
Castallio  have  only  a  comma  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh 
verse.  This  punctuation  only  makes  a  plain  truth  a  lit- 
tle more  obvious,  that  is,  that  baptism  is  the  Christian 
circumcision.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  very 
text  was  so  explained,  in  a  work  ascribed  to  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, who  lived  very  near  the  time  in  which  Paul  wrote 
it.  "  The  question  there,  is,  Why,  if  circuincision 
^'  were  a  good  thing,  we  do  not  use  it  as  the  Jews  did  ? 
"  The  answer  is.  We  are  circumcised  by  Baptism  ivith 
''  Chris fs  circumcisiouy&c.  And  he  brings  this  text 
^^  for  his  proof.''(^^)  In  allusion  to  the  same  text,  both 
Basil  and  Chrysostom  say  that  Baptism  is  the  "  circum- 
cision made  without  hands.^^  And  Austin  declares  it 
one  of  the  errors  of  the  Pelagians,  to  "  say  that  in 
^'  the  baptism  of  infants,  there  is  no  putting  off  the  flesh, 
^^  that  is,  no  circumcision  made  without  hands.'^(/i) 

But  if,  in  opposition  to  my  Opponent,  you  should 
understand  this  passage  to  relate  to  spiritual  circum- 
cision and  baptism,  as  I  do,  it  makes  no  difference 
in  the  conclusion  ;  for  the  identity  of  the  thing  signi- 
fied is  an  evident  deduction  from  the  substantial 
identity  of  the  outward  signs.  When  the  Apostle 
tells    us  that  the  spiritual   ^^  putting  off  the  body  of 

{g)  Wairs  History  of  Baptism.  Chap.  2,  Sect.  2.  Fi'om  him  quoted 
by  the  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  in  his  First  series  of  Facts  and 
Evidences  on  the  subject  of  Baptism. 

(A)  Wall's  History.  Chap.  14.  Sect.  1.  2.    Chap.  12.  Sect.  5, 


(     244     ) 

the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ/^ 
is  the  same  as  ^^  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism/' 
does  he  not  evidently  teach  that  they  point  out  the 
same  inward  benefits  because  they  are  substantially 
the  same  ecclesiastical  seal  ?  If  you  can  believe  that 
Christian  baptism  is  the  Christian  circumcision  spiritu- 
ally, then  you  will  not  long  reject  the  doctrine  that  bap- 
tism is  the  sigillistical  successor  and  substitute  of  cir- 
cumcision. 

In  reply  to  this  language,  my  Opponent  insists  that 
one  thing  cannot  be  a  substitute  for  another,  unless  it 
completely  quadrates,  that  is,  agrees  in  all  points.  He 
then  urged  what  he  considered  nine  points  of  difference 
between  circumcision  and  baptism.  I  then  shewed  nine 
points  of  difference  which  might  easily  be  found  between 
a  drafted  militia-man  and  his  hired  substitute,  who 
might,  nevertheless,  be  received  as  a  legal  substitute, 
and  be  esteemed  greatly  preferable  to  his  principal ;  as 
baptism  certainly  is  to  circumcision.  He  then  enlarged 
his  list  to  eleven  points,  and  I  mine  to  twelve.  He  has 
now  brought  them  up  to  fourteen  ;  to  which  I  will  add, 
from  other  quarters,  enough  to  make  them  amount  to 
twenty,  and  concisely  notice  them  in  detail.  They  are 
as  follows,  viz. 

1.  "  Circumcision  was  administered  to  males  only  :  its 
substitute  then  should  be  confined  to  males  only." 

This  is  an  objection  urged  by  all  the  Baptists  ;  even 
by  Mr.  Emlin,  who  admits  that  in  the  text  which  we 
last  discussed,  Paul  does  speak  of  baptism  as  being  to 
Christians,  instead  of  circumcision.     Yet  he  says,  '^  It 


(     245     ) 

does  not  follow  that  the  subjects  of  each  must  be  the 
same  ;'^  and  instances  in  the  females.  Dr.  Wall's  an- 
swer to  Mr.  Emlin  will  do  for  my  answer  to  my  Op- 
ponent. He  says,  ^^  It  does  follow  that  they  should  be 
^'  the  same,  except  where  the  gospel-rules  do  direct  an 
''  alteration  ;  but  St.  Paul,  discoursing  of  baptism,  (Gal. 
''  iii.  27.  28.)  says,  that  in  respect  of  it,  '  there  is  neither 
'' '  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is 
^^ '  neither  male  nor  female/  &c.  that  is,  there  is  no  differ- 
''  ence  between  them."(z)  Now  if  he  can  shew  as  plain 
authority  for  excluding  infants,  as  this  is  for  receiving 
females,  it  will  be  to  the  purpose. 

2.  ^^  Circumcision  required  not  faith  in  its  subject. — 
Baptism  therefore  ought  not  to  require  faith  in  its  sub- 
ject.'^ 

To  this  I  answer,  that  although  neither  circumcision 
nor  baptism  requires  faith  in  an  infant  subject,  yet  as 
they  are  only  different  forms  of  the  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  they  surely  demand  faith  in  the  adult 
subject,  and  in  the  parent  or  guardian  who  presents 
an  infant  subject.  In  relation  to  circumcision,  this  is 
proved  by  the  very  first  administration  of  it ;  and  by 
very  many  other  scriptures,  which,  as  they  have  already 
occupied  much  of  your  time,  need  not  here  be  repeated. 

3.  "  Circumcision  was  administered  according  to  law 
on  the  eighth  day.  Its  substitute  then  should  be  ad- 
ministered on  the  eighth  day.'^ 

My  Opponent  well  recollects  that  this  difficulty  was 
agitated  in  the  time  of  Fidus  and  Cyprian :  but  with 
them  it  was  a  difficulty  in  relation  to  duty,  not  doctrine. 

it)  Wall's  Defence  against  Gale,  p.  3X.  35, 


(     246     ) 

Those  who  believed  baptism  on  the  eighth  day  obligato- 
ry, and  those  who  did  not  believe  it  obligatory,  both 
believed  it  to  be  the  Christian  circumcision.  As 
there  were  no  Anabaptists  in  those  days,  the  doctrine 
that  circumcision  and  baptism  were  substantially  the 
same  seal,  was  clear  enough  to  the  whole  church. 
The  only  difficulty  with  Fidus  was,  to  discover 
the  lawfulness  of  baptizing  an  infant  before  he  was 
eight  days  old.  He  expressed  no  doubt  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  baptizing  a  child  when  he  had  arrived  to  that 
age,  or  at  any  subsequent  period  ;  for  this  was  the  law 
of  circumcision  :  but  in  a  Council  of  sixty  Bishops,  he 
could  not  find  one  to  agree  with  him,  in  thinking  it  un- 
lawful to  baptize  under  the  age  of  eight  days.  I  agree 
with  them,  because  this  limitation  of  time  formed  a  part 
of  the  complicated  machinery  of  Old  Testament  puri- 
fications, as  laid  down  in  the  twelfth  Chapter  of  Exodus; 
in  the  prospect  of  which  it  was  probably  at  first  com- 
manded. But  if  you  think  differently,  I  would  advise 
to  do  as  Fidus  did ;  Baptize  on  the  eighth  day  and  on* 
ward,  the  sooner  the  better. 

4.  '^  Circumcision  was  administered  by  parents,  not 
by  priests  ex  officio.  Baptism,  its  substitute,  ought 
likewise  to  be  administered  by  parents,  not  by  priests, 
or  clergy,  ex  officioP 

My  Opponent, doubtless,  knows  that  his  Master,  Rob- 
inson, asserts  ''  the  right  of  every  Christian  to  enlarge 
f^  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  by  teaching  and  baptizing 
f  ^  others."  You  know  that  my  Opponent  has  followed 
this  Infidel  in  making  baptism  every  thing,  and  yet  in 
\vaging  a  war  of  extermination  against  the  whole  order 


(     247     ) 

of  clergy,  as  such.  If  he  be  correct  in  denying  that 
baptism  is  a  church- ordinance^  then  it  is  of  but  little 
importance,  to  have  church-officers  to  administer  it ; 
nor  do  I  believe  that  he  wishes  the  existence  of  a  church 
to  observe  it.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  this  objection 
about  lay-baptism,  is,  like  the  preceding  one,  entirely 
irrelevant  to  the  question  in  hand.  It  may  be  decided 
either  the  one  way  or  the  other,  without  in  the  least  af- 
fecting the  identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism.  This 
will  appear  from  the  slightest  examination  of  the  subject, 
and  from  the  fact,  that  lay-baptism  has  been  advocated 
and  opposed  by  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  while 
they  still  held  their  peculiar  and  contrary  views,  on  the 
question  of  identity.  This  argument,  however,  will 
serve  to  increase  his  numerical  force  of  objections,  and 
to  shew  his  eager  desire  to  destroy  the  clergy  ;  for  he 
knows  that  ^f  he  can  smite  the  shepherds,  their  flocks 
can  be  scattered. 

5.  ^'  Circumcision  was  a  mark  made  upon,  not  the 
face  of  the  subject.  Baptism,  its  substitute,  ought 
not  to  be  performed  on  the  face.^' 

This  objection  has  already  been  answered ;  and  I  can- 
not help  still  thinking,  that  if  an  earthly  Prince  has  a 
right  to  change  a  civil  or  military  seal,  as  to  its  form, 
its  device,  its  letters,  and  its  place  of  administration, 
such  as  the  hand  or  the  forehead,  without  altering  its 
substance,  then  our  heavenly  Prince  has  a  right  to  do 
the  same. 

6.  ^^Circumcision  was  not  a  duty  binding  upon  the  child, 
but  upon  the  parents ;  it  was  an  act  of  the  parent,  the 
subject  was  passive.     Baptism,  therefore,  is  not  a  duty 


(     248     ) 

of  the  subject,  but  of  the  parent ;  it  is  the  parent's  act^ 
the  subject  is  passive.^^ 

It  is  a  pleasant  proof  of  the  strength  of  our  cause,  when 
a  man  of  such  a  fruitful  invention,  cannot  muster  four- 
teen objections  to  it,  without  making  this  pitiful  evasion 
one  of  them.  The  whole  force  of  it  depends  upon  the 
ambiguity  of  the  word  subject,  as  it  may  mean  either  an 
infant  or  an  adult.  He  knows  that  if  he  had  left  out  this 
word,  or  if  he  had  used  it  uniformly  and  exclusively,  he 
would  have  appeared  like  a  man  talking  in  his  sleep.  Let 
us  try  it  first  without  this  ambiguous  word.  It  would 
read  as  follows,  viz.  ^^Circumcision  was  not  a  duty 
binding  upon  the  child,  but  upon  the  parents  ;  it  was  an 
act  of  the  parent,  the  child  was  passive.  Baptism^ 
therefore,  is  not  a  duty  of  the  child  but  of  the  parent : 
it  is  the  parent's  act,  the  child  is  passive."  Would  not 
this  be  a  powerful  objection  to  the  identity  of  circumci- 
sion and  baptism  ?  It  is  at  least  as  passive  as  any  child 
that  I  ever  saw  baptized.  Now  let  us  read  it  with  the 
ambiguous  word  subject,  uniformly  substituted  for  child, 
^'  Circumcision  was  not  a  duty  binding  upon  the  subject, 
but  upon  the  parents ;  it  was  an  act  of  the  parent,  the 
subject  was  passive.  Baptism,  therefore,  is  not  -a  duty 
of  the  subject,  but  of  the  parent :  it  is  the  parent's  act, 
the  subject  is  passive."  Does  my  Opponent  believe  such 
doctrine  as  this  ?  Does  he  believe  that  circumcision  was 
not  a  duty  binding  upon  Abraham  its  first  subject,  but 
upon  his  parents  ?  Does  he  believe  that  it  was  not  bind- 
ing upon  thousands  of  adult  subjects  who  followed  him  ? 
If,  therefore,  it  is  admitted  that,  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, unsealed  adults  were  bound  to  receive  circumci- 


(     249     ) 

sion  for  themselves  and  their  children  ;  and  if,  under  the 
New  Testament,  unsealed  adults  are  bound  to  receive 
baptism  for  themselves  and  their  children,  where  is  the 
force  of  his  objection  against  the  identity  of  these  ordi- 
nances ?  All  the  force  that  it  has  goes  to  prove  their 
identity. 

7.  ^'  Circumcision  was  administered  to  all  a  man's 
slaves,  all  born  in  his  house  and  bought  with  his  money. 
Baptism,  therefore,  ought  to  be  administered  to  all  the 
slaves  of  a  householder,  as  well  as  to  his  own  seed.'' 

In  answer  to  this,  I  would  observe,  that  the  true  doc- 
trine of  circumcision  was,  that  this  ordinance  should  be 
administered  to  every  believer  and  his  infant  household; 
which  embraced  his  own  infants,  those  which  he  had 
adopted,  and  those  which  were  bound  to  him  ;  all  of 
which  he  had  an  opportunity  of  training  up  in  the  way 
they  should  go.  When  Abraham's  adult  servants  were 
circumcised,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  with 
their  own  consent,  and  upon  their  own  profession,  (as 
was  the  case  with  the  Israelites  at  Gilgal,)  because  these 
servants  of  Abraham  had  previously  received  this  train- 
ing. They  are  expressly  called  his  trained  servants, 
before  the  institution  of  circumcision  :(/)  and  the  word 
there  used  does  not  appear  to  relate  to  military  disci- 
pline,  but  to  spiritual  instruction  and  ecclesiastical  ini- 
tiation ;  as  in  the  Proverb  which  says  "  Train  up  a 
child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old,  he 
will  not  depart  from  it."  All  that  I  have  said  here  con- 
cerning   household  circumcision,    is  true    concerning. 


(y  ),Gen.  xiv.  14. 
li 


(     350     ) 

household  baptism ;  as  I  hope  to  shew  in  my  argument 
for  infant  baptism,  from  Apostolical  practice. 

8.  "  Circumcision  required  no  piety  in  the  parent  to 
entitle  his  child  to  this  ordinance ;  neither  faith  nor 
piety  were  ever  required  of  a  parent  to  entitle  his  child 
to  circumcision.  Piety  or  faith  ought  not  then  to  be 
demanded  as  necessary  in  parents  to  the  baptism  of  their 
children." 

I  am  sorry  to  say  that  thousands  of  Pedobaptists  agree 
with  every  word  of  this  unscriptural  stuff :  yet  they  are 
so  far  from  thinking  it  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  that 
baptism  is  the  Christian  circumcision,  that  they  seriously 
believe  it  an  argument  in  its  favour.  Others,  on  the  con- 
trary, think  more  correctly,  that  granting  church  privi- 
leges to  those  who  do  not  even  profess  the  circumcision 
of  the  heart,  is  a  crying  sin  of  both  dispensations.  These 
also  think  that  the  agreement  of  the  two  dispensations,  in 
this  feature,  is  an  evidence  that  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism are  the  same  seal, 

9.  "  Circumcision  imported  that  its  subject  was  enti- 
tled to  all  the  promises  made  to  Abraham  concerning  his 
natural  seed.  Baptism,  its  substitute,  therefore,  imports 
that  its  subject  is  entitled  to  a  share  in  all  the  temporal 
blessings  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham.'' 

In  reply,  I  would  remark,  that  if  either  of  these  pro- 
positions be  true,  then  Providence  has  deprived  very 
many  of  their  rights.  Instead  of  this,  I  would  say  that 
circumcision  is  a  seal  of  the  rigliteousness  of  faith,  and 
baptism  is  the  same.  We  shall  then  have  the  Scriptures 
on  our  side,  as  has  been  already  proved. 

10.  "  Circumcision  was  a  token  or  sign  in  the  flesh,  of 


(     251     ) 

the  covenant  made  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis  ;  Baptism,  is  therefore,  a  token  or  sign  in  the  flesh, 
of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter  of  Genesis/^ 

I  answer,  as  it  has  been  proved  that  the  best  Baptist 
authorities  answer,  that  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis contains  a  revelation  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  I 
moreover  answer,  that  circumcision  and  baptism  are 
only  different  forms  of  the  same  sign  or  token  of  the 
one  covenant  of  grace  in  different  administrations.  It 
is  possible  that  the  objector  here  means  to  renew  his  in- 
sinuation that  baptism  cannot  be  a  token  of  the  covenant, 
because  it  is  a  watery  one.  If  so,  I  would  ^gain  remind 
him,  that  the  token  of  the  Noachic  covenant  was  a  wa- 
tery one.  ''  I  do  set  my  bow  in  the  cloud,  and  it  shall 
^^be  for  a  token  of  a  covenant  between  me  and  the 
^'  earth/^(« 

11.  ''  Circumcision  was  not  to  be  performed  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  Bap- 
tism, its  substitute,  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  performed 
in  these  names.'^ 

My  answer  is,  that  if  I  believed,  with  a  certain 
objector,  that  the  second  of  these  adorable  persons  is 
not  the  supreme  and  eternal  God,  and  that  the  third 
had  no  existence  until  the  day  of  Pentecost,  then  I  would 
not  baptize  in  this  name.  It  is  for  this  reason,  that  some 
more  sincere  and  consistent  Unitarians  have  actually  ceas- 
ed to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  But  as  this 
Triune  God  has  instituted  circumcision  and  baptism,  and 

(k)  Gen.  ix.  13, 


(     252     ) 

made  them  one  and  the  same  seal,  we  administer  the 
Christian  form  as  he  has  directed,  without  knowing  or 
inquiring  what  words  were  originally  used  in  the  Jewish 
form, 

12.  "  Circumcision  was  identified  with  the  law  of 
Moses,  (John  vii.  23.)  and  shared  the  same  fate.  Bap- 
tism is,  therefore,  identified  with  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  must  share  the  same  fate.'^ 

I  answer,  that  according  to  Gill's  understanding  of  the 
passage  referred  to,  it  affords  no  better  argument  against 
the  doctrine  that  baptism  is  the  Christian  circumcision, 
than  against  the  doctrine  that  the  first  day  of  the  week 
is  the  Christian  sabbath.  But  the  whole  objection  rests 
upon  ground  which  is  perfectly  preposterous;  that  be- 
cause one  form  of  a  seal  is  abolished,  therefore  its  sub- 
stitute must  be  abolished.  He  might  as  well  say  that 
because  a  drafted  militia-man  stays  at  home,  therefore 
his  hired  substitute  must  stay  at  home. 

13.  "  Circumcision  has  come  to  such  a  crisis  that  who- 
soever is  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  him  nothing  ; 
therefore,  baptism,  its  substitute,  will  also  come,  or  has 
now  come,  to  such  a  crisis,  that  whosoever  is  baptized, 
Christ  shall  profit  him  nothing.'' 

I  answer,  that  this  is  true  enough  with  respect  to  that 
baptism  which  lays  a  man's  conscience  perfectly  asleep, 
from  the  moment  of  his  coming  up  out  of  the  water. 
The  reason  is,  that  he  puts  his  baptism  in  the  place  of 
Christ,  as  the  Jews  put  their  circumcision  in  the  place 
of  Christ.  Therefore,  as  they  reject  Christ,  he  will 
profit  them  nothing.  But  there  is  one  sort  of  circumci- 
sion which  has  not  yet  come  to  that  crisis.     It  is  that 


m 

(     253     ) 

which  Paul  had  in  view,  when  he  said,  ^^  We  are  the 
^^  circumcision,  which  worship  God  in  the  Spirit,  and 
*'  rejoice  in  Christ,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the 
^^  flesh. '^  ^^  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised,  with  the 
^^  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
^^  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  {^Christian  cir- 
^^  cumcision^  or]  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  [being] 
^^  buried  with  him  in  baptism.^^  This  is  a  sort  of  cir- 
cumcision in  which  Christ  profits  us  much ;  and 
which  does  not  lead  his  true  church  to  boast  that 
their  conscience  has  not  troubled  them  since  they  re- 
ceived it. 

14.  ''  Circumcision  did  not  exempt  one  of  the  Jews 
from  baptism,  when  they  believed  in  Christ;  there- 
fore, its  substitute,  baptism,  ought  not  to  exempt  a 
believer  from  being  baptized  again  and  again.'^(/) 

My  Opponent  probably  knows  that  the  fact  of  bap- 
tism having  been  rightly  administered  to  those  who  had 
been  rightly  circumcised,  is  disputed.  I,  however,  do 
not  dispute  it.  Yet  I  am  far  from  perceiving  the  force 
of  his  objection.  It  is  as  much  as  to  say,  that  because, 
on  the  change  of  dispensation,  the  New  Testament  form 
of  the  seal  was  administered  to  those  who  had  received 
the  Old  Testament  form  which  is  now  abolished,  there- 
fore, without  a  change  of  dispensation,  the  form  ought 
to  be  repeated,  when  there  is  no  abolition  to  make  it  ne- 
cessary. 

15.  Some  time  after  my  Opponent  had  got  through 
his  fourteen  objections,  he  speaks  as  follows,  viz.  ^^If  it 

(/)  For  all  these  objections,  Sec  Spur.  Deb.  with  me,  pp.  219.  220. 


(      264      ) 

[the  infant]  was  about  to  die,  one  hour  before  it  was 
eight  days  old,  the  Jews  would  not  circumcise  it.  If 
baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  why  then  do 
many  seem  so  anxious  to  have  their  infants  sprinkled  be- 
fore they  die ! !  This  is  a  fifteenth  contradiction  of  the 
doctrine  of  substitution,  in  which  the  practice  of  the 
Paido-baptists  differs  from  their  principles.'^(m) 

I  could  answer  this  objection  by  observing  that  his  fif- 
teenth is  the  same  as  his  third,  which  I  have  answered 
already.  My  Opponent's  endeavour  to  multiply  objec- 
tions, by  making  one  serve  for  two  numbers,  reminds  me 
of  a  defence  which  I  once  heard  before  a  Session,  by  a 
delinquent  who  was  charged  with  abandoning  church 
ordinances.  He  very  formally  said,  ^^  I  will  divide  my 
'^  defence  into  three  parts.  The  First;  The  Presbyte- 
'^  rians  signed  a  petition  to  stop  the  mail  on  the  Sabbath, 
'^  so  that  my  son  in  Indiana  might  be  killed  by  the  In- 
^^  dians^  and  I  not  hear  of  it,  till  it  would  be  a  day  too 
^'  late.  The  Second ;  The  Presbyterians  want  to  join 
'^  church  and  state.  The  Third  the  same  as  the  first.'^ 
Although  the  Moderator  of  the  Session  asked  him  if  it 
was  not  through  mistake,  that  he  had  made  "  the  third 
the  same  as  the  first,''  he  insisted  upon  it,  and  it  was  so 
recorded.  As  I  do  not  expect  my  Opponent  easily  to 
relinquish  his  fifteenth  reason,  I  have  allowed  it  to  him, 
although  it  is  the  same  as  the  third?  and  although  it 
really  does  not  deserve  to  be  uttered  and  repeated,  any 
more  than  the  old  gentleman's  objection  to  stopping  the 
mail  on  the  Sabbath.. 

(m)  Spur.  Deb.  p.  226. 


(    ^^^    ) 

16.  I  am  reminded  by  a  friend,(n)  that  my  Opponent 
has  urged  as  one  objection,  that  ^^Pedobaptists  are  bound 
to  sprinkle  all  infants  of  sprinkled  parents.'^ 

As  this  is  the  same  as  the  eighth,  my  answer  to  it  has 
been  given  under  that  number.  He  might  as  well  object, 
in  the  next  place,  that  the  Pedobaptists  want  to  join 
church  and  state. 

17.  My  Opponent  has,  moreover,  said,  '^  that  among 
the  Jews,  good  and  bad  alike  eat  the  Passover  on  the 
ground  of  circumcision.''(o) 

In  answer  to  this,  I  would  remind  you  of  the  sorrowful 
confession  of  pious  and  candid  Baptists,  like  Mr.  Great- 
rake,  who  mourn,  that  good  and  bad  too  often  eat  the 
Eucharist,  on  the  ground  of  adult  immersion.  This  fact, 
therefore,  will  argue  more  for  than  against  the  sameness 
of  circumcision  and  baptism. 

18.  In  reply  to  some  of  Dr.  Mason's  remarks  concern- 
ing hereditary  descent,  my  Opponent  concludes  that, 
according  to  our  system  "  The  children  of  the  flesh  are 
counted  for  the  seed,''(j&)  contrary  to  the  Apostle's  de- 
claration that  "They  which  are  the  children  of  the 
"  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of  God ;  but  the  chil- 
"  dren  of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed. "(5') 

To  this  I  answer,  that  "  the  children  of  God''  and 
"  the  seed"  here  mentioned,  are  the  members  of  the  in- 
visible church ;  and  the  Apostle's  remark  was  made  to 
shew  that  membership  in  the  church  invisible  was  not  al- 
always  according  to  hereditary  descent,  among  Jews  or 


(w)  Mr.  Lowiy,  in  his  written  abstract,  now  before  me. 

'  r\\    T   r\wT*v's    A  |-».  <■*-••»>*-•  4-  f  4t\    ^tAiii"     T^r»l*     ^i/ifn    m*^ 

[q)  Rem.  ix.  8. 


fo)  Lowry's  Abstract.  {/i)  Spur.  Deb.  witli  me,  p.  400. 


(     256     ) 

Christians  ;  although  a  right  to  visible  church  member- 
ship descended  from  parent  to  child^  among  both  Jews 
and  Christians. 

19.  In  order  to  help  out  ray  Opponent  with  a  round 
number  of  objections,  permit  me  to  notice  one  of  Mr. 
Gale's,  as  reported  by  Dr.  Wall.(r)  It  is  that  Pedobap- 
tists  cannot  account  baptism  to  be  instead  of  circumci- 
sion, because  purification  of  heart  and  life  is  instead  of 
it.  This,  however,  is  in  opposition  to  my  Opponent's 
doctrine,  that  it  never  was  ^^  a  sign  of  the  circumcision 
of  the  heart."  Here  then,  we  have  two  errorists  tak- 
ing directly  opposite  ways  to  arrive  at  the  same  point. 
The  object  of  both  is,  to  prove  that  baptism  cannot  be 
the  Christian  circumcision.  With  this  view,  one  of  them 
rejects  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  in  order  to  de- 
prive us  of  those  texts,  which  shew  that  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision and  spiritual  baptism  are  the  same  ;  but  the 
other  boldly  asserts  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  in 
order  that  he  may  make  it  the  sole  successor  and  substi- 
tute of  the  outward  form,  to  the  exclusion  of  baptism, 
which  the  scriptures  represent  as  a  visible  substitute  ; 
while  they  always  teach  inward  circumcision,  both  be- 
fore and  after  the  change  of  the  outward  form. 

20.  But  the  most  powerful  objection  of  all,  I  have 
reserved  for  the  last.  It  is  a  supposed  necessity  that  a 
substitute  should  perfectly  ''  quadrate"  with  its  prin- 
cipal. He  insists  upon  it  that  this  quadration  must  be 
universal  and  perfect ;  so  that  if  one  feature  of  differ- 
ence, howsoever  minute,  can  be  ascertained  between 

(r)  Defence,  p.  233. 


(     257     ) 

two  things,   it  is  impossible  that  one  of  them  can  be  a 
substitute   for  the  other.     They  must  fit  one  another 
with  as  much  exactness  as  the  impression  on  the  wax 
corresponds  with  the  seal ;  nay,  they  must  quadrate 
much  more  perfectly  ;  for  between  some  seals  and  their 
impressions,  you  may  perhaps  find  twenty  points  of  dif- 
ference ;  but  between  a  substitute  and  its  principal  there 
must  be  no  point  of  difference.      For  this  reason  it  is, 
that  my  Opponent  has  been  so  anxious  to  multiply  par- 
ticulars, thinking  that  every  additional  one,  even  though 
it  were  a  repetition  of  a  former  one,  made  his  refutation 
the  more  triumphant.     He  knows  moreover,  that  this 
principle  is  at  the  bottom  of  every  objection  which  he 
or  any  other  Baptist  has  ever  urged  against  the  sigillisti- 
cal  identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism.     Let  it  once 
be  admitted  that  a  substitute  may  differ  in  one  point,  and 
in  many  points  from  its  principal,  and  be^  a  substitute 
still,  and  every  objection  which  they  have  made  will  go 
for  nothing.     For  this  reason  my  Opponent  has  pressed 
his  doctrine  of  quadrations  with  remarkable  solicitude, 
confidence  and  animation.     He  has  literally  taught  you 
quadrations  with  both  hands,  by  spreading,   or  may  I 
say,  spraddling  all  his  fingers,  to  shew  you  that  a  substi- 
tute and  its  principal  must  quadrate  as  exactly  as  the 
fingers  of  the  right  hand  agree  with  those  of  the  left. 
But  what  an  unhappy  illustration !  Is  there  no  difference 
between  the  right  hand  and  the  left  ?  Are  there  any  two 
hands,  or  fingers,  or  teeth,  or  eyes,  in  this  house,  which, 
when  minutely  examined,  do  not  differ  in  more  than 
twenty  particulars  ?      This  doctrine  is  also  at  war  with 

Mr.  Gale's  position  that  purification  of  heart  and  life  is 
K  k 


(     258     ) 

instead  of  circumcision.  Is  there  no  difference  between 
an  outward  sign  and  an  inward  grace?  But  remember 
that  our  Saviour  himself  became  a  substitute  for  his 
people.  Is  there  no  difference  between  holiness  and  cor- 
ruption, the  Creator  and  the  creature?  How  would  the 
enemies  of  his  vicarious  satisfaction  be  pleased !  how 
would  the  gates  of  hell  rejoice,  if  my  Opponent  could 
establish  his  ambidextral  quadrations! ! 

But  without  continuing  to  point  so  awful  a  truth 
against  a  theory  so  supremely  preposterous,  I  will  refer 
you  to  an  illustration  which  may  occupy  your  familiar 
attention  in  detail.  It  is  that  of  a  military  substitute,  of 
which  a  slight  mention  has  been  made  already.  You  re- 
member that  when  my  Opponent  enlarged  his  objections, 
so  as  to  number  nine  points  of  difference  between  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism,  I  produced  nine  particulars  in 
which  a  military  substitute  might  differ  from  his  princi- 
pal, and  yet  be  legally  and  joyfully  recognized  as  a  sub- 
stitute. You  remember  that  he  enlarged  his  list  to  eleven, 
and  I  mine  to  twelve.  He  afterward  went  on  to  four- 
teen, then  fifteen,  and  I  have  helped  him  to  gather  his 
scattered  forces  until  they  amount  to  twenty.  At  pre- 
sent, therefore,  you  will  not  think  it  necessary  for  me 
to  enlarge  my  list  to  more  than  thirty.  To  spare  your 
time,  I  shall  get  over  them  with  all  possible  speed,  even 
to  the  neglect  of  grammatical  accuracy.  To  proceed 
then  ;  A  man  who  is  hired  to  take  the  place  of  a  drafted 
militia-man,  who  wishes  to  stay  at  home,  will  be  cheer- 
fully and  correctly  recognized,  as  a  true  and  legal  sub- 
^stifriff  ,^  if  he  should    difler  from  his  |)rin(M])al.  in  bcinij 


(     259     ) 


1  Taller 

2  Younger 

3  Straighter 

4  Stronger 

5  Swifter 

6  Sprightlier 

7  Thicker 

8  Thriftier 

9  Heavier 
10  Healthier 


11  Handsomer        21  Gentler 

12  Happier  22  Genteeler 

13  Holier  23  Kinder 

14  Humbler  24  Cleanlier 

15  Hardier  25  Lovelier 

16  Honester  26  Chaster 

17  Wittier  27  Meeker 

18  Soberer  28  Quieter 

19  Graver  29  Wiser 

20  Braver  30  Better 
You  will  observe,  that  in  all  these  points  of  difference 

between  the  principal  and  his  substitute,  there  is  not  one 
which,  in  the  least,  invalidates  the  vicarious  character 
of  the  latter;  nor  one  which  does  not  make  him  superior 
to  his  principal.  Just  so  it  is  with  the  two  forms  of  our 
initiatory  seal :  there  is  not  one  feature  of  difference 
which  disqualifies  baptism  from  serving  as  a  substitute 
for  circumcision  ;  nor  one  feature  which  does  not  make 
it  superior  to  it.  If,  therefore,  my  Opponent  could 
muster  thirty  points  instead  of  fifteen  or  twenty,  they 
would  only  shew  the  great  superiority  of  the  New  Tes- 
ment/orm,  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  without,  by 
any  means,  impugning  their  substantial  identity. 

But  I  am  far  from  admitting  that  there  are  as  many 
points  of  difference  as  my  Opponent's  increasing  zeal 
may  choose  to  enumerate.  If  he  had  stopped  at  fiwQ,  he 
would  probably  have  had  all  that  deserve  the  name. 
Baptism  differs  from  circumcision,  1.  In  its  being  an  «,?- 
persion,  or  ablution^  or  affusion  of  water,  instead  of  an 
effusion  of  blood.  2.  In  its  being  administered  usually 
to  the  head,  forehead,  or  face.    3.  In  its  being  lawful  to 


(     260     ) 

administer  it  to  infants  of  any  age,  as  well  under  as  over 
eight  days.  4.  In  its  admitting  subjects  of  both  sexes. 
5.  In  its  not  requiring  a  profession  of  faith  in  both  pa- 
rents. Any  person  who  knows  the  nature  of  seals,  must 
see  that  all  these  points  are  merely  circumstantial;  not 
one  of  them  belonging  to  the  essence  of  a  seal.  Any  one 
may  perceive,  moreover,  that  there  is  not  one  of  them,, 
which  does  not  make  the  substitute  superior  to  the  ori- 
ginal form.  My  Opponent,  therefore,  might  have  spared 
the  remark  that  I  had  illustrated  the  subject  by  a  mili- 
tary substitute,  on  account  of  "  finding  the  points  of  dif- 
ference between  circumcision  and  baptism  so  numerous 
and  so  glaring.''(5)  They  are  few  in  number,  and  in- 
different in  their  nature. 

My  Opponent  would  persuade  you  that  the  case  in 
question  does  not  deserve  an  answer  :  yet  it  is  amusing 
to  see  that  he  is  obliged  to  answer  it ;  and  in  doing  so,  is 
compelled  to  relinquish  his  original  ground.  His  words 
are  as  follows,  viz.  "  He  [M^Calla]  introduces  a  mili- 
^'  tary  substitute  instead  of  a  theological  one.  And  this 
^^  is  not  all,  nor  the  worst  of  it ;  he  draws  his  conclusion 
''  from  the  personal  differences  between  the  substitute 
^'  and  his  principal,  and  not  from  any  difference  in  the 
'^  performance  of  the  of&ccs  or  duties,  which  the  substi- 
"  tute  is  obliged  to  perform  for  his  principal.  Had  we 
"  made  objection  to  baptism  as  a  substitute  for  circum- 
'^  cision,  because  the  one  was  a  watery  rite,  and  the 
"  other  a  bloody  one,  there  would  have  been  something 
^*  more  specious  in  his  sophistry.     But  we  objected  to 

(*)  spur.  Deb.  p.  2J7. 


(     261      ) 

^'  the  substitute,  as  differing  from  the  principal,  on  the 
''  ground  of  its  not  performing  the  offices  or  duties  of 
^'  the  principal.  If  a  military  substitute  performs  all  the 
"  duties  incumbent  on  the  principal,  he  is  completely  a 
^^  substitute,  although  his  person  might  differ  in  one 
^'  hundred  respects  from  him.  Now  if  baptism  perform- 
^^  ed  all  the  offices  and  duties  of  circumcision,  neither 
^^  more  or  less,  we  would  not  object  to  it,  as  a  substitute, 
'^  because  of  its  personal  or  characteristic  differences, 
^^  already  mentioned  under  the  idea  of  blood  and 
"  water  :\t) 

So  much  for  my  Baptist  Opponent.  Now  in  these 
remarks,  I  say,  he  has  made  a  retrograde  movement.  In 
his  original  ground,  he  required  that  the  principal  and 
the  substitute  should  quadrate^  not  only  entirely ^  but 
completely ;  not  only  in  their  nature  and  ends,  but  in 
their  appendages  and  circumstances.  On  this  ground 
his  first,  third,  and  fifth  objection,  required  that  they 
should  both  be  confined  to  one  sex,  both  be  applied  to 
one  part  of  the  body,  and  both  be  administered  on  the 
eighth  day.  His  fifteenth  objection  will  not  admit  of  the 
administration  of  the  substitute  to  a  child,  ''one  hour 
before  it  was  eight  days  old.^^  But  now  he  says,  "  We 
''  would  not  object  to  it  as  a  substitute,  because  of  its 
"  personal  or  characteristic  differences  already  mention- 
"  ed  under  the  idea  of  blood  and  water P  That  is,  he 
would  not  deny  that  baptism  was  a  substitute  for  circum- 
cision, merely  "  because  the  one  was  a  watery  rite,  and 
the  other  a  bloody  one."     How  can  these  things  be  re- 

(0  Spur.  Deb.  p.  237. 


(     262     ) 

conciled  ?  Is  not  a  change  from  the  shedding  of  blood 
to  the  application  of  water  as  important  as  changing  the 
part  of  the  body  to  which  the  seal  is  applied  ?  Is  not  a 
change  from  blood  to  water  as  important  as  subtracting 
^'  one  hour^^  from  eight  days  ?  and  is  it  not  as  essential  as 
any  feature  of  difference  which  can  be  discovered  be- 
tween circumcision  and  baptism?  If  so^  then  all  the 
twenty  objections^  according  to  my  Opponent's  new 
principle^  have  no  more  weight  against  the  identity  of 
the  two  rites^  than  my  thirty  objections  have  against  the 
vicarious  standing  of  the  military  substitute. 

But  in  taking  his  new  ground^  my  Opponent  would 
persuade  you  that  he  has  reserved  a  secure  refuge.  He 
says^  ^^If  a  military  substitute  performs  all  the  duties 
"  incumbent  on  the  principal,  he  is  completely  a  substi- 
^'  tute,  although  his  person  might  differ  in  one  hundred 
"  respects  from  him.^^  This,  however,  is  so  far  from 
being  a  formidable  principle  to  the  Pedobaptists,  that  it 
is  the  very  ground  upon  which  their  doctrine  rests.  We 
admit  that  the  Christian  rite  differs  from  the  Jewish,  in 
five  non-essential  particulars,  just  as  one  man  may  differ 
from  another  in  a  hundred  non-essential  particulars ;  yet 
we  say  that  baptism  and  circumcision  have  the  same  es- 
sential qualities,  as  seals ;  just  as  these  two  men  may  be 
able  to  perform  the  same  essential  duties,  as  soldiers.  In 
despite  of  all  my  Opponent's  sophistry  on  this  subject, 
it  has  been  shewn  that  circumcision  is  an  initiatory  seal; 
so  is  baptism  :  circumcision  is  a  sign  of  pardon  and  jus- 
tification ;  so  is  baptism :  circumcision  is  a  sign  and 
means  of  sanctification  ;  so  is  baptism.  And  while  they 
agree  in  these  essentials,  (as  it  has  been  proved  at  large 


(     263     ) 

that  they  do  agree;)  they  may  differ  in  one  hundred 
particulars,  and  yet  the  one  may  be  the  substitute  of  the 
other,  according  to  my  Opponent's  own  shewing;  howso- 
ever contradictory  it  may  be  to  his  exploded  doctrine  of 
quadrations. 


Mr.  Gale(t^)  says  that  "  the  argument  for  infant  bap- 
tism from  circumcision  was  not  insisted  on  by  those  call- 
ed Ancient  Fathers;   and  though  he  might  have  in- 
stanced in  some  of  them,  who,  indeed,  do  not  mention  its 
succeeding  circumcision,  he  unluckily  picks  out  for  his 
only  instances  St.  Cyprian  and   St.  Austin,  who  are 
known  to  have  mentioned  it ;  but  he  says  it  was  not  in- 
sisted on  by  them,  for  aught  he  finds  V^  Perhaps  a  more 
diligent  and  candid  search  would  have  enabled  him  to 
find  it.  The  audience  will  recollect,  that,  before  I  form- 
ally commenced  the  defence  of  the  present  proposition, 
my  Opponent  w^as  eager  to  enter  upon  it;  and  in  doing 
so,  "  declared  that  Calvin  and  Beza  were  the  first  who 
''  argued  Infant-baptism  from  Jewish  circumcision. ''(i^) 
You  recollect  how^  emphatically  I  called  upon  you  to 
mark  that  declaration.     Startled  at  my  request,  and 
fearing  that  exposure  which  I  promised  to  make,  in  due 
time,  if  Providence  allowed,  he  came  forward  to  support 
his  assertion  by  what  he  called  a  respectable  writer. 
Suspecting  from  the  outside  of  the  pamphlet,  as  well  as 
from  the  ignorance  and  rashness  displayed  in  its  con- 
tents, that  its  author  was  Dr.  Fishback  of  Lexington,  I 

(w)  As  reported  by  Dr.  Wall,  in  his  Defence,  p.  370.  The  words  quo- 
ted are  the  Doctor's. 
{y)  Lowry's  Abstract  of  notes  taken  at  the  Debate. 


(     264     ) 

called  for  the  name;  but  my  Opponent  had,  by  that 
time,  become  so  modest,  that  I  could  not  distinguish 
what  name  he  announced.  However,  here  we  have  it  in 
the  Doctor/ whose  pamphlet  I  have  taken  the  trouble  to 
bring  along  with  me.  His  words  are  as  follows,  viz.  ^^I 
^^  had  been  accustomed  to  hear  it  said,  that  baptism 
'^  was  established  in  the  Christian  church,  in  the  place 
^^of  circumcision  under  the  Jewish  economy.  In 
'^  MY  investigation  of  the  subject,  I  found  that  that 
''  opinion  was  comparatively  of  a  recent  date.  I  could 
''  not  find  in  church-history  or  any  where  else,  that  it 
^'  had  been  introduced  earlier  than  the  sixteenth  cen- 
^^  tury,  and  for  the  first  time  by  Calvin  and  Beza.'^(ti;) 
While  I  was  proving  to  you  that  the  early  church  agreed 
with  the  scriptures  in  calling  baptism  a  seal,  it  became 
necessary  to  read  some  testimonies  from  the  Fathers, 
which  shew,  at  the  same  time,  that  they  considered  it  as 
coming  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  Notwithstanding 
this,  my  Opponent  renews  his  gross  assertion,  immedi- 
ately after  he  had  retreated  from  his  qjiadrations,  no- 
ticed a  few  minutes  ago.  He  says,  ''  The  quotations 
^^  read  from  Dr.  Wall's  History  does  not  disprove  our 
^^  assertion,  that  Calvin  and  Beza  were  the  first  who  in- 
^'  troduced  baptism  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  in  the 
^^  sense  contended  for  by  Mr.  M^Calla."(:r) 

As  [the  testimony  of  the  church  on  this  subject,  be- 
longs to  the  fourth  general  topic,  it  was  my  intention  to 
reserve  it  for  that  place.  Its  anticipation,  we  hope,  will 
be  excused,  especially  as  it  will  occupy  very  little  time. 

(w)  Fishback's  Letters,  p.  69.  (x)  Spur.  Deb.  p.  237. 


(     265     ) 

The  evidence  is  plain,  and,  strange  to  tell,  it  may  be 
found  in  that  very  paragraph  of  Dr.  Fishback's  book, 
from  which  I  have  just  now  read  an  extract.  He  there 
informs  us  that  Athanasius,  who  lived  twelve  hundred 
years  before  Calvin  and  Beza,  says  that  "  Circumcision 
''  was  appointed  on  the  eighth  day,  to  be  a  figure  of  that 
'^  regeneration  made  by  haptismP 

His  cotemporary,  EpiphaniuS;i  says,  '^  The  law  had 
''  the  patterns  of  things  in  it ;  but  the  truth  of  them  is 
"  in  the  gospel.  The  law  had  the  circumcision  in  the 
'^  flesh,  serving  for  a  time,  till  the  great  circumcision 
''  came,  that  is  baptism;  which  circumcises  us  from  our 
"  sins,  and  seals  us  unto  the  name  of  God.'^(y) 

His  contemporary,  Augustine,  speaks  as  follows,  viz, 
^'  Yet  w^e  may  besides  take  a  true  estimate,  how  much 
"  the  sacrament  of  baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the 
^'  circumcision  which  God's  former  people  received. 
"  For  Abraham  was  justified  before  he  received  that,  as 
"  Cornelius  was  endued  with  the  Holy  Spirit  before  he 
''  was  baptized :  and  yet  the  Apostle  says  of  Abraham, 
"  that  *  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of 
"  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,'  by  which  he  had  in 
^'  heart  believed,  and  it  had  been  counted  to  him  for 
''  righteousness.  Why  then  was  he  commanded  thence- 
"  forward  to  circumcise  all  his  male  infants  on  the  eighth 
'^  day,  when  they  could  not  yet  believe  with  the  heart, 
"  that  it  might  be  counted  to  them  for  righteousness, 
''  but  for  this  reason,  because  the  sacrament  itself  is  of 
itself  of  great  import? Therefore,  as  in  Abraham 


{y)  Wall's  Hist.  Chap.  21.  Sect.  5. 

LI 


(     266     ) 

^^  the  righteousness  of  faith  went  before,  and  ciixum- 
^'  cision  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  came  after; 
^'  so  in  Cornelius  the  spirit  of  sanctification  by  the  gift 
^^  of  the  Holy  Spirit  went  before,  and  the  sacrament  of 
^^  regeneration  by  the  laver  of  baptism  came  after.  And 
^^  as  in  Isaac  who  was  circumcised  the  eighth  day,  the 
^^  seal  of  the  righteous  ness  of  faith  went  before,  and  (as 
^^  he  was  a  follower  of  his  Father's  faith)  the  righteous- 
^^  ness  itself,  the  seal  whereof  had  gone  before  in  his  in- 
*^  fancy,  came  after ;  so  in  infants  baptized  the  sacra- 
^^  ment  of  regeneration  goes  before,  and  (if  they  put  in 
^^  practice  the  Christian  religion)  conversion  of  the 
^^  heart,  the  mystery  whereof  went  before  in  their  body, 
^^  comes  after/^(2r) 

Austin,  moreover,  tells  us  concerning  Chrysostom, 
^^  Even  he,  as  well  as  the  martyr  Cyprian,  teaches,  that 
^^  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh  was  commanded  in  the 
^^  way  of  a  type  of  baptism  J^  He  then  quotes  the  words 
of  Chrysostom,  which  are  the  same  as  those  of  Basil ; 
after  which  he  adds,  ^^  You  see  how  this  man,  establish- 
^^  ed  in  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  compares  circumcision  to 
^^  circumcision,  and  threat  to  threat :  that  which  it  is, 
^^  not  to  be  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day ;  that  it  is, 
^^  not  to  be  baptized  in  Christ :  and  what  it  is,  to  be  cut  | 
^'  off  from  his  people ;  that  it  is  not  to  enter  into  the 
^^  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  yet  you  [Pelagians]  say 
^'  that  in  the  baptism  of  infants  there  is  no  putting  off  the 
^^  flesh,  that  is,  no  circumcision  made  without  hands; 
^^  when  you  afiirm  that  they  have  nothing  which  needs 

tQ  be  put  off^:  for  you  do  not  confess  them  to  be  deacl 

(z)  Wall's  Hist.  Chap.  15.  Sect.  3. 


(i 


(     267     ) 

*^  in  the  uncircumcision  of  the  flesh,  by  which  is  meant 
^^  sin,  especially  that  sin  which  is  derived  originally : 
^'  for  by  reason  of  this,  our  body  is  the  body  of  sin, 
^'  which  the  Apostle  says  is  destroyed  by  the  cross  of 
''  Christ.^^(a) 

Chrysostom  says,  '^  But  our  circumcisioriy  I  mean 
^^  the  grace  of  baptism^  gives  cure  without  pain,  and 
^^  procures  to  us  a  thousand  benefits,  and  fills  us  with  the 
^^  grace  of  the  Spirit :  and  it  has  no  determinate  time,  as 
^^  that  had ;  but  one  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of  his 
^^  age,  or  one  that  is  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  one  that  is  in 
^^  his  old  age,  may  receive  this  circumcision  made  with- 
^^  out  hands ;  in  which  there  is  no  trouble  to  be  under- 
^'  gone,  but  to  throw  off  the  load  of  sins,  and  receive 
'^  pardon  for  all  foregoing  offences.''(6) 

Ambrose  says,  "  For  a  very  good  reason  does  the  law 
^^  command  the  males  to  be  circumcised  in  the  beginning 
'^  of  infancy,  even  the  bondslave  born  in  the  house :  be- 
^^  cause  as  circumcision  is  from  infancy,  so  is  the  disease. 
^^  No  time  ought  to  be  void  of  the  remedy,  because  none 
^^  is  void  of  guilt.''  ^^  Neither  a  proselyte  that  is  old, 
^^  nor  an  infant  born  in  the  house  is  excepted ;  because 
^^  every  age  is  obnoxious  to  sin,  and  therefore  every  age 
*^  is  proper  for  the  sacrament."  ^^  The  meaning  of  the 
*^  mystery  is  plain.  Those  born  in  the  house  are  the 
^^  Jews,  those  bought  with  money  are  the  Gentiles  that 
^^  believed :  for  the  Church  is  bought  with  the  price  of 
^^  Christ's  blood.  Therefore,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  and 
'^  all  that  believe,  must  learn  to  circumcise  themselves 

(a)  Wall's  Hist  Chap.  14.  Sect.  2.  (d)  Ibid.  Chap.  14.  Sect,  1, 


(     237     ) 

^^  from  sin^  that  they  may  be  saved.  Both  the  home-born 
^^  and  the  foreigner,  the  just  and  the  sinful,  must  be  cir- 
"  cumcised  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  so  as  not  to  prac- 
"  tice  sin  any  more :  for  no  person  comes  to  the  king- 
'^  dom  of  heaven  but  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.^^ 
''  You  see,  he  excepts  no  person,  not  an  infant,  not  one 
^'  that  is  hindered  by  any  unavoidable  accident.''(c) 

Basil,  in  reference  to  that  text  which  occasioned  the 
last  sentence  quoted  from  Ambrose,  speaks  as  follows, 
viz.  "  A  Jew  does  not  delay  circumcision,  because 
^^  of  the  threatening  that  every  soul  that  is  not  circum- 
^'  cised  the  eighth  day  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  : 
^'  and  dost  thou  put  oiT  the  circumcision  made  without 
^^  hands  in  putting  off  the  flesh,  which  is  performed  in 
^^  baptism,  whea  thou  hearest  our  Lord  himself  say, 
^^  ^  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  one  be  born  of 
''  '  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  shall  not  enter  into  the 
^^  ^kingdom  of  God ?'''W 

Cyprian,  and  the  rest  of  the  Bishops  who  were  pre- 
sent at  the  Council,  sixty-six  in  number,  in  their  letter 
to  Fidus,  in  favour  of  baptizing  a  child  before  he  is  eight 
days  old,  notwithstanding  the  law  of  circumcision  on  that 
point,  argue  as  follows,  viz.  ^^That  the  eighth  day  was 
"  observed  in  the  Jewish  circumcision,  was  a  type  going 
"  before  in  a  shadow  and  resemblance,  but  on  Christ's 
"  coming  was  fulfilled  in  the  substance.  For  because 
"  the  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  next  to  the  sabbath  day, 
"  was  to  be  the  day  on  which  the  Lord  was  to  rise  from 
^'  the  dead,  and  quicken  us,  and  give  us  the  spiritual 

(c)  WaU's  Hist.  Chap.  13.  Sect.  2.  (e)  Ibid.  Chap,  12.  Sect.  5. 


< 


1 


(     269     ) 

^^  circumcision,  this  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  next  day  to 
"  the  sabbath,  or  Lord's  day,  was  signified  in  the 
''  type  before  ;  which  type  ceased  when  the  substance 
^'  came,  and  the  spiritual  circumcision  was  given  to  us. 
''  So  that  we  judge  that  no  person  is  to  be  hindered  from 
^^  obtaining  the  grace,  [or,  as  it  is  elsewhere  expressed, 
''  '  it  is  not  for  us  to  hinder  any  person  from  hapti8mj'\ 
"  by  the  law  that  is  now  appointed  :  and  that  the  spirit- 
''  ual  circumcision  [that  is,  baptism,']  ought  not  to  be 
^'  restrained  by  the  circumcision  that  was  according  to 
''  the  flesh :  but  that  all  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  grace 
"  of  Christ ;  since  Peter,  speaking  in  the  Acts  of  the 
''  Apostles,  says,  '  The  L(trd  hath  shewn  me  that  no  per- 
"  '  son  is  to  be  called  common  or  unclean.'  '^(/) 

Justin  Martyr  says,  ^^  We  also  who  by  him  have 
'^  had  access  to  God,  have  not  received  this  carnal  cir- 
^'  cumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision,  which 
"  Enoch,  and  those  like  him  observed.  And  we  have 
"  received  it  by  baptism,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  because 
'^  we  were  sinners :  and  it  is  enjoined  to  all  persons  to  re- 
/*  ceive  it  by  the  same  way.'^  A  work  entitled  "  Ques- 
^'  tions  to  the  Orthodox,'^  is  ascribed  to  Justin  Martyr. 
My  Opponent,  in  his  spurious  publication  against  Mr. 
Walker, (^)  recognizes  its  authenticity.  In  answer  to 
the  question,  why,  if  circumcision  were  a  good  thing, 
we  do  not  use  it  as  well  as  the  Jews  did  ;  the  answer  by 
Justin  is,  "We  are  circumcised  hy  Baptism  yfilh.  Chris  fs 
cir  cumcision, ^\h) 

Thus  is  this  doctrine  clearly  traced  from  Augustine 

(  /')  Wall's  Hist.  Chaj).  6.  Sect  1.  {g)  p.  103. 

(h)  Wall's  Hist.  Chap.  2.  Sect.  1.  2. 


(     270     ) 

back  to  Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  in  the  second  century^ 
immediately  after  the  Apostles,  from  whom,  as  we  have 
already  shewn,  they  received  it.  Dr.Fishback  professes  to 
make  some  quotations  from  Wall's  History  of  Baptism, 
in  which  they  are  interspersed,  and  from  which  I  have 
now  read  them.  If  he  has  read  the  whole  of  this  work, 
he  could  well  say,  ^^  I  had  been  accustomed  to  hear  it 
^^  said,  [even  by  the  early  Fathers]  that  baptism  was  es- 
^^  tablished  in  the  Christian  church,  in  the  place  of  cir- 
^^  cumcision  under  the  Jewish  economy.''  But  instead 
of  tracing  it  to  the  ancient  Fathers,  this  man  of  deep 
research  says  ^'  In  my  investigation  of  the  subject,  I 
'^  found  that  that  opinion  was  comparatively  of  a  recent 
''  date.  I  could  not  find  in  church  history,  [not  even 
^'  in  Wall's  History,]  or  any  where  else,  [not  even  in 
*^  the  writings  of  the  Ancients  themselves,]  that  it  had 
^^  been  introduced  earlier  than  the  sixteenth  century, 
''  and  for  the  first  time  by  Calvin  and  Beza."  And  my 
Opponent  echoes  the  declaration  of  his  respectable  wri- 
ter, by  saying,  "  The  quotations  read  from  Dr.  Wall's 
^^  History  does  not  disprove  our  assertion  that  Calvin 
*^  and  Beza  were  the  first  who  introduced  baptism  in  the 
''  room  of  circumcision,  in  the  sense  contended  for  by 
"  Mr.  M^Calla." 

If  my  Opponent  were  to  deny,  as  he  did  with  Mr. 
Walker,  that  this  doctrine  was  urged  by  the  Fathers  as 
a  professed  argument  in  proof  of  a  divine  command  for 
Infant-baptism,  that  would  be  another  thing.  The  truth 
is,  they  had  no  one  to  argue  with  on  this  subject.  Even 
TertuUian  himself,  who  was  opposed  to  baptizing  infants, 
still  admitted  that  there  was  a  divine  command  for  bapti- 


(     271     ) 

zing  them  :  as  I  hope  to  shew  under  the  fourth  Topic  of 
this  discussion. 

After  your  hearing  my  sentiments  and  the  sentiments 
of  the  Christian  Fathers  so  distinctly,  it  is  perhaps  dijfi- 
cult  for  you  to  imagine  what  my  Opponent  means,  when 
he  pretends  that  their  view  of  this  doctrine  is  different 
from  ^^  the  sense  contended  for  by  Mr.  M^Calla.'^  If  these 
be  not  words  spoken  at  random,  I  would  conjecture  that 
he  may  refer  to  their  imitation  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in 
speaking  of  the  Christian  church  as  a  spiritual  and 
even  celestial  dispensation,  of  which  the  Jewish  church 
was,  in  a  certain  sense,  only  a  figure.  Circumcision  is 
called  ^^  a  figure^^  of  baptism,  by  Athanasius.  Epi- 
phanius  calls  it  a  pattern.  Chrysostom,  as  reported  by 
Austin,  calls  it  a  type.  Cyprian  calls  it  ^^a*  type 
going  before  in  a  shadow  and  resemblance J^^  This, 
however,  is  owing  to  the  superior  spirituality  of 
the  Christian  dispensation ;  for  which  reason,  Paul 
calls  the  New  Testament  church,  ^^  Jerusalem  which 
is  above. "(z)  For  this  reason,  Augustine,  Chrysos- 
tom, and  Basil,  call  baptism,  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands ;  and  Cyprian  and  Justin  Martyr  call 
it  the  spiritual  circumcision :  or  rather  the  latter  of 
these,  who  lived  before  them  all,  says,  "  We  have  re- 
^^  ceived  it  by  baptism.'^  Epiphanius  calls  baptism 
^*  the  truth  of'  circumcision.  Cyprian  calls  it  ^'  the 
^'  substance^^  of  circumcision.  They  all  used  this  lan- 
guage, however,  not  to  deny  that  the  one  has  come  in  the 
place  of  the  other,  but  to  express  that  doctrine ;  because 
every  one  knows  that  now,  the  substance  has  come  iu 

(i)  Gal.  iv.  26. 


(     272     ) 

place  of  the  shadow,  and  the  anti-type  in  the  place  of 
the  type.  And  that  they  do  this  in  the  sense  in  which 
I  understand  Paul's  words,  where  he  calls  baptism  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  seve- 
ral of  them  give  my  explanation  to  that  text ;  besides 
which  Chrysostom  calls  our  circumcision^  the  grace  of 
baptism  ;  and  Justin  expressly  says,  ^^  We  are  circum- 
cised by  baptism  with  Christ's  circumcision.''  While 
they  thus  considered  them  the  same  in  substance^  it  has 
been  already  shewn  that  they  considered  circumcision  a 
sealf  and  baptism  a  seal.  They  evidently  therefore  held 
the  doctrine  of  the  proposition  now  under  discussion, 
from  ten  to  fifteen  hundred  years  before  Calvin  and  Beza 
came  on  the  stage. 


After  what  has  been  said,  we  shall  consider  it  certain, 
because  it  has  been  proved  to  be  true,  that  there  is  a  real 
distinction  between  the  substance  of  a  s'eal^  and  the  form 
of  a  seat;  that  circumcision  and  baptism  are  denominated 
a  seal  by  the  scriptures  and  the  early  church ;  that  they 
are  both  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church  in  their  respec- 
tive dispensations ;  that  they  are  both  signs  of  pardon 
and  justification ;  and  both  signs  and  means  of  sanctifi- 
cation ;  that  Christians  are  called  the  circumcision  ;  and 
that  baptism  is  called  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  that 
the  real  points  of  dijfference  are  comparatively  few,  and 
these  relating  to  the  form,  and  not  to  the  substance,  and 
therefore  not  forbidding  the  substitution  of  baptism  for 
circumcision,  any  more  than  a  superiority  in  health,  sta- 
ture, activity,  and  bravery,  would  forbid  the  acknow- 


(     273     ) 

ledgment  of  a  military  substitute  5  and  that  this  doctrine, 
so  far  from  being  invented  by  Calvin  and  Beza,  is  as  old 
as  Christian  baptism  itself.  It  has  been  also  shewn  that 
the  truth  of  this  proposition^  as  well  as  the  former,  is  ra- 
tified by  the  great  Dr.  Gill,  who,  in  speaking  of  the  cov- 
enant, doctrines,  and  ordinances  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, says,  "  There  have  been  the  same  things  for 
^^  SUBSTANCE  in  former  ages.^^  "  These,  in  some  sense, 
are  all  old  things,  and  indeed  are  the  same  in  sub- 
STANCE."(a)  We  shall,  therefore,  consider  it  as  pro- 
ved that  Jewish  circumcision  before  Christ,  and  Chris- 
tian baptism  after  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  seal  in 
SUBSTANCE,  tliough  in  different  forms. 


PROPOSITIO^r  IT. 

The  ADMINISTRATION  OP  THIS  SEAL  TO  INFANTS  WAS  ONCE 
ENJOINED  BY  DIVINE  AUTHOUITY  ;  THAT  IS,  GoD  ONCE  COM- 
MANDED IT. 

It  has  already  been  shewn  that  Abraham  and  his  seed 
were  divinely  constituted  a  visible  church  of  God ;  that 
the  Christian  church  is  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic 
church ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  Jewish  society  before 
Christ,  and  the  Christian  society  after  Christ,  are  one 
and  the  same  church  in  different  administrations,  and 
that  Jewish  circumcision  before  Christ,  and  Chris- 
tian baptism  after  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  seal  in 
substance,  though  not  in  form.    The  command  for  ad- 


(a)  Gill  on  Eccles.  i.  9. 
M  m 


(     274     ) 

ministering  this  seal  to  infants  is  contained  in  the  follow- 
ing words,  viz.  ''  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  shall 
''  keep  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee ; 
^'  every  man-child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised. 
"  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin,  and 
^^  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and 
^'  you.''  ''  And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose 
''  flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall 
"  be  cut  off  from  his  people ;  he  hath  broken  my  cove- 
'^  nant.(y )  Now,  as  the  particular  form  here  enjoined, 
has  been  abrogated,  while  the  substance  of  the  seal  con- 
tinues under  the  form  of  baptism  ;  and  as  we  have  no 
more  right  to  decline  obeying  a  divine  command,  than 
we  have  to  invent  a  religious  ordinance,  this  command 
must  remain  obligatory  until  it  is  repealed ;  and  if  it  has 
not  yet  been  repealed,  it  is  now  binding ;  so  that  my  first 
argument  for  infant-baptism,  drawn  from  a  divine  com- 
mand, will  stand  good.  That  it  is  not  repealed,  then, 
will  be  the  subject  of  fifth  and  last  proposition. 


PROPOSITION  Y. 

The  ADMINISTllATION  OP  THIS  SEAL  TO  INFANTS  HAS  NEVER 
SINCE  BEEN  PROHIBll'El)  BY  DIVINE  AUTHORITV  ;  THAT  IS, 
THIS    COMMAND  OF  GoD,    ORIGINALLY    GIVEN    IN    THE    OlD 

Testament,  is  not  repealed  in  the  New  Testament, 

BUT  rather  confirmed. 

As  I  have  already  exposed  every  thing  of  my  Oppo- 
nent's, which  could  be  considered  an  effort  to  prove  a 


(»Gen.  xvii,  10.  11.  14. 


(     ^^73      ) 

repeal  of  this  command,  I  shall  proceed  immediately  to 
point  out  some  of  those  New  Testament  authorities,  by 
which  it  is  rather  confirmed  than  repealed.  In  doing 
this,  we  shall  consider,  1.  The  membership  of  infants. 
2.  The  holiness  of  infants.  3.  The  discipleship  of  in- 
fants. 

POINT  I. 

Our  Saviour  so  recognizes  the  church-mempership  of  in- 
fantSy  as  to  confirm  the  command  for  administering  to 
them  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church. 

^•'  And  they  brought  unto  him  also  infants,  that  he 
^^  would  touch  them:  but  when  his  disciples  saw  it,  they 
'^  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  called  them  unto  liim,  and 
'^  said.  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
"  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  "  the 
''  kingdom  of  heaven,"  asanother  Evangelist  reads  it. (/i) 

There  is  great  diversity  of  opinion  concerning  the 
scope  of  this  passage.  Some  think  it  chiefly  intended  to 
teach  that  all  infants  are  in  a  state  of  guiltless  purity  ; 
that  they  are  neither  corrupt,  nor  deserving  of  punish- 
ment; and  that  they  will,  of  course,  go  to  heaven, 
either  through  their  own  innocence,  or  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  for  a  sin  which,  in  their  view,  did  not  deserve 
punishment :  thus  teaching  that  we  are  not  depraved  and 
guilty  in  Adam,  and  that  Christ's  atonement  was  for  in- 
nocent people,  who  did  not  need  it. 

In  opposition  to  this  opinion.  Dr.  Gill  remarks,  that 
little  children  "  may  be  chosen  of  God,  redeemed  by  the 

{Ji)  Jl,ukp  xviii.  15,  16.     Matt,  xix,  14, 


(     276     ) 

^^  blood  of  Christ,  and  have  the  passive  work  of  the  Spi- 
^^  rit  on  their  souls,  and  so  enter  into  heaven  ;  but  this 
^'  is  not  the  sense  of  this  text/^  The  Doctor  observes, 
that  "  It  is  as  if  our  Lord  should  say,  Don't  drive  away 
^^  these  children  from  my  person  and  presence ;  they  are 
"  lively  emblems  of  the  proper  subjects  of  a  gospel- 
^'  church  state,  and  of  such  that  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
'^  dom  of  heaven :  by  these  I  may  instruct  and  point  out 
''  to  you,  what  converted  persons  should  be,  who  have 
'^  a  place  in  my  church  beloiv,  and  expect  to  enter  into 
^^  my  kingdom  and  glory  above.(/) 

If  I  understand  the  Doctor  in  these  remarks,  he  ad- 
mits that  by  '^  the  kingdom  of  God,^^  and  "  the  kingdom 
of  heaven ^^  our  Saviour  meant  "my  church  helow,^^  ''a 
gospel  church-state ;''  as  preparatory  to  eternal  happi- 
ness above.  Even  when  our  Saviour  says,  "  My  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world,"  Gill  very  properly  under- 
stands him  to  mean  "  His  mediatorial  kingdom,''  which 
^^  includes  the  whole  gospel  dispensation,  Chinsfs  visi- 
^^  ble  church-state  on  earth,  and  the  whole  election  of 
^^  grace."(?72)  That  the  expression  in  this  place  does 
mean  the  visible  church,  is  admitted  in  my  Opponent's 
eighth  argument  against  the  ecclesiastical  identity  of  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  societies. (?^)  The  same  general 
statement  may  be  made  concerning  John's  preaching, 
''  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 
''  By  which  is  meant  not  the  kingdom  of  glory  to  be  ex- 
"  pected  in  another  world,"  says  Dr.  Gill ;  "  It  is  the 

(I)  Gill  on  Matt,  xix,  lA,  (m)  Gill  on  John  xviii.  56. 

(7z)  Spurious  Debate,  p.  229. 


(     277     ) 

^^  gospel  dispensation  which  was  about  to  take  place," 
says  the  Doctor ;  and  this  interpretation  my  Opponent 
makes  the  foundation  of  his  second  argument,  (o)  More- 
over, our  Saviour  tells  us  that  ever  since  the  time  of 
John,  '*•  The  kingdom  of  God  is  preached.'^  "  The  gos- 
'^  pel  dispensation,'^  says  Gill.  The  visible  church- 
state,  says  my  Opponent's  third  argument,  (p)  These 
facts  are  intended  to  shew  that  the  Pedobaptist  under- 
standing of  this  important  phrase  '^  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven," is  conceded  by  the  greatest  Baptist  commentator, 
and  the  most  zealous  Baptist  Polemic  in  the  world  :  and 
remember  that  the  Commentator  has  admitted  this  inter- 
pretation in  the  very  text  now  in  hand,  in  which  he  says 
that  the  expression  means  the  "  gospel  church-state," 
''  my  church  below."  Embody  the  commentary  in  the 
text,  and  how  will  it  read  ?  "  Suffer  little  children  to 
^^  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  my 

''  CHURCH  BELOW." 

This  is  evidently  the  import  of  other  passages  con- 
taining the  same  expression.  Our  Saviour  said  to  the 
Jews,  ''  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you, 
^'  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  there- 
'^  oV\q)  As  the  Jews  and  their  children  were  admit- 
ted to  church  privileges,  this  threat  indicated  that  they 
and  their  children  should  be  deprived  of  church  privi- 
leges :  and  when  he  promises  to  transfer  these  privileges 
to  the  Christian  church,  where  is  the  word  which  says, 
^'  The  promise  is  not  unto  you  and  to  your  children  ?" 


(o)  Spur.  Deb.  p.  197.     Sec  Matt  iii.  2.  and  Gill  on  it, 
'Ji)  (iill  on  Luke  y    ' 
[q)  Matt.  xxi.  43. 


(//)  (iill  on  Luke  xvi.  16.     Spur.  Debate,  p.  197. 


(     278     ) 

Again,  ''  I  say  unto  you,  that  many  shall  come  from 
^^  the  east  and  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham 
'^  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  bat 
^^  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out  into  ut- 
^^  ter  darkness.'^(r)  On  this  passage,  Dr.  Gill  correctly 
remarks  that  ^^  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  means  "  The 
^^  church  of  God,  which  is  his  kingdom  on  earth.''  When 
Jews  sat  in  this  kingdom,  their  infants  sat  with  them, 
by  express  permission  from  the  king  himself.  His 
language  then  was,  ^^  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
^^  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
^^  kingdom  of  heaven.''  When  this  great  Head  of 
the  church  appeared  in  the  flesh,  to  commence  a  new 
administration  of  this  same  kingdom,  did  he  tell  them 
that  a  rejection  of  infants  was  one  of  its  features?  His 
language  still  was,  ^^  SuflPer  little  children  to  come  unto 
**  me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
^^  of  God,"  "  my  church  below." 

This  conclusion  which  is  inevitable,  Dr.  Gill  endeav- 
ours to  avoid,  by  resorting  to  the  Persic,  Arabic,  and 
Syriac  translations ;  the  last  of  which  is  far  the  most 
ancient,  and  the  one  on  which  he  most  relies :  as  he  con- 
siders the  first  of  them  ^^  rather  paraphrasing  than 
translating. '\s)  From  this  he  endeavours  to  shew  that 
the  persons  of  whom  our  Saviour  speaks  as  composing 
his  church  below,  were  not  real  infants,  but  such  adults 
as  resembled  infants.  The  importance  of  our  resembling 
infants,  is  a  sentiment  which  is  certainly  contained  in 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  :(/)  yet  this  is  so  far 

(r)  Mat  viii.  11.  12.  («)  Gill  on  Mat,  xix.  14. 

(0  Ps.  cxxxi.  2.  Matt,  xviii.  1—6.  Mk.  x.  15. 


(     279     ) 

from  militating  against  the  church-membership  of  infants, 
either  among  Jews  or  Christians,  that  it  is  an  argument 
in  its  favour.  If  adults  ought  never  to  be  initiated  until 
they  resemble  infants,  then  the  fitness  of  infants  for  initi- 
ation is  taken  for  granted. 

But  let  us  see  what  assistance  Dr.  Gill  has  obtained 
from  the  Syriac  version,  in  proving  that  it  is  adults, 
and  not  infants,  who  belong  to  the  church.  A  little  la- 
bour and  attention  in  examining  and  comparing  different 
passages  of  that  version,  with  what  he  has  said  about 
them,  will  shew  that  he  has  refuted  himself.  In  Matt, 
xix  14,  the  Syriac  reads,  ^^  Suffer  little  children  to 
"  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  those  who 
^^  are,  daik  elin,(w)  such  as  these^  is  the  kingdom  of 
^^  heaven.''  In  Mark  ix.  37.  it  reads,  ^^  Whosoever 
^^  shall  receive  aik  ena,(z;)  as  this  little  child,  in  my 
*^  name,  receiveth  me.''  In  Mark  x.  14.  this  Version 
reads  ''  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  for- 
^^  bid  them  not ;  for  of  those  who  are,  daik  elin,  such 
"  as  these,  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  I  wish  it  noticed 
that  this  passage  reads,  daik,  such  as,  and  the  preceding 
passage  reads,  aik,  as,  but  that  Dr.  Gill  reads  aik,  as, 
in  both  texts,  and  in  both  he  renders  it  by  the 
word  like,  which  alteration  and  mistranslation  are 
both  more  favourable  to  his  views,  than  if  he  had 
recorded  and  translated  it  with  perfect  accuracy.  It 
may  be,  however,  that  he  considers  aik  and  daik  sy- 
nonimous.  If  so,  we  shall  take  him  at  his  word,  and 
explore  only  one  of  them  to  ascertain  the  force  of  both. 
But  do  not  think  that  I  shall  weary  you  with  many  exam- 

(m)  r'yn  yKi  (v)  wn  y» 


(     280     ) 

pies  :  two  or  three  must  suffice.  The  little  Lexicon  of 
Gutbirius  explains  daik  by  the  Latin  word  talis, 
such  asy  and  refers  to  Matt.  ix.  8.  to  prove  it.  Here 
the  Syriac  Version  is  as  follows  :  ^^  But  when  this  multi- 
"  tude  saw,  they  feared  and  glorified  God,  that  he  had 
''  given  power,  daik  ena,  such  as  this,  to  the  sons 
''  of  men.'^  This  was  occasioned  by  our  Saviour's  heal- 
ing "  the  sick  of  the  palsy  ;''  an  outward  miracle  intend- 
ed to  set  forth  his  omnipotent  energy  in  healing  our  in- 
ward diseases;  just  as  our  Saviour  held  up  infants  to  the 
view  of  his  disciples,  to  set  forth  the  necessity  of  the 
new-birth.  But  the  question  is,  what  power  the  multi- 
tude meant,  in  the  view  of  the  Syriac  Translators, 
when  they  spoke  of  a  "  power  such  as  this^^  act  of  heal- 
ing? Did  they  mean  the  outward  miracle,  or  the  in- 
ward grace  ?  That  they  meant  the  latter,  no  man  from 
Syria,  Persia,  or  Arabia,  is  simple  enough  to  believe  : 
if  they  meant  the  former.  Dr.  GilPs  whole  fabric  of 
Syrian  resemblances  tumbles  to  pieces.  On  this  subject 
every  man  of  common  sense  is  compelled  to  adopt  one 
opinion,  and  Dr.  Gill  among  the  rest,  as  may  be  seen  in 
his  Commentary.  If,  then,  when  the  multitude  spoke  of 
^' power,  DAIK  ENA,  such  as  thisy^^  they  meant  literal- 
ly, the  power  of  working  miracles,  and  not  figuratively, 
the  power  of  saving  souls,  which  i^esembled  it ;  let  us 
then  be  consistent,  and  interpret  such  expressions  literal- 
ly of  infants,  and  not  confine  them  by  figures,  to  pro- 
fessing adults,  because  they  resemble  infants.  This  there- 
fore settles  the  meaning  of  Dr.  Gill's  parallel  passage, 
just  now  quoted  ;  "  Whosoever  shall  receive  as  this  lit- 
'*  tie  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.''    There  is  also 


(     281     ) 

another  association  between  the  two  passages  which  need 
not  be  overlooked.  In  Matt.  ix.  8.  there  is  a  Latin 
Translation  of  the  Syriae  which  reads  "  potestatem 
^^  HUJUSMODi/^  for,  ''power  such  as  this ;^^  where 
the  literal  miracle,  and  not  the  figurative  grace,  is  con- 
fessedly intended.  So  in  Mark.  ix.  37.  the  ancient 
Vulgate  Latin  says,  "  Whosoever  shall  receive  one,  ex 
^'  HUJUSMODI  puERis,  of  children  of  this  sort  ;^^  that 
is,  real,  literal,  and  not  figurative  children. 

One  more  example  will  shew  that  Dr.  Gill  refutes 
himself.  It  is  Jas.  iv.  16.  The  Syriae  reads,  "  Ye 
''  glory  in  your  inflations:  all  glorying,  daik  en  a,  such 
^'  as  this,  is  from  evil  /'  The  Dr.  refers  to  the  Syriae 
of  this  passage,  but,  forgetting  his  doctrine  of  resem- 
blances, he  gives  these  Syriae  words  precisely  the  same 
rendering  which  our  English  Translators  have  given  to 
the  original  Greek.  Instead  of  saying  "  all  rejoicing 
like  this,^'  he  says,  '^  all  such  rejoicing.''  Why  could 
he  not  understand  the  Syriae  of  Mark  ix.  37.  in  the 
same  way  ?  ^'  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  such 
*'  children  in  my  name."  And  why  could  he  not  thus 
interpret  the  same  word,  in  Matt.  xix.  14,  and  Luke 
xviii.  16.  where  the  word  children  is  confessedly  im- 
plied, and  where  there  is  only  a  little  addition  of  the 
characteristic  verbosity  of  the  Syriae  language? 

It  is  vain  to  contend  that  the  authors  of  the  Syriae 
Version  had  doubts  about  the  application  of  these  passa- 
ges to  infant-baptism,  when  Tertullian  himself,  the  boast 
of  the  Baptists,  admitted  that  it  was  a  command  to  this 
effect,  although  he  became  so  wise  as  to  dispute  the  pro- 
priety of  obeying  it.  In  advocating  the  delay  of  bap- 
N  n 


(     282     ) 

tism  in  the  case  of  unmarried  and  bereaved  believers, 
(a  whim  of  his  own,)  he  says,  "  precipue  tamen  circa 
^'  PARVULOS  ;  hut  especially  concerning  little  ones  ;'^  the 
very  name  which  Jerome  gives  to  the  children  which 
our  Saviour  blessed.  Then  Tertullian,  knowing  that 
this  passage  lay  in  his  way,  observes,    "Ait  quidem 

''  DOMINUS,  NOLITE  ILLOS  PROHIBERE  AD  ME  VENIRE. 

''  The  Lord  indeed  saith,  Forbid  them  not  to  come  unto 
"  me  :'^  a  prohibition,  the  application  of  which  to  infant- 
baptism  he  never  once  denies,  but  only  urges  pruden- 
tial reasons  for  delaying  obedience,  "si  non  tam 
^'  NECESSE,  except  when  absolutely  necessary, ^^ 

As  Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  saw  that  this 
testimony  was  fatal  to  his  cause,  he  directed  his  artillery 
against  our  understanding  of  the  word,  parvulos,  little 
onesj  pretending  that  it  meant  adults.  After  all  Dr. 
Gill's  ingenuity  on  the  subject  of  resemblances,  he  found 
that  the  Syriac  could  not  help  him  out,  if  those  were 
real  infants  whom  our  Saviour  blessed.  He  thinks  that 
there  is  evidence  in  the  little  Greek  pronoun,  auta,  themy 
in  Luke  xviii.  16.  ''  which  shews  that  these  infants  were 
^^not  new  bom  babes^  or  children  at  the  breast,  but 
*^  such  as  were  more  grown  up,  since  they  were  capable 
"  of  being  called  to,  and  of  coming  to  Christ."  In  op- 
posing this  flimsy  conceit,  I  need  not  lay  much  stress 
upon  the  Ethiopic  Version  which  he  confesses  is  point- 
edly against  him  ;  I  shall  be  satisfied  with  proving  that 
the  infallible  original,  to  which  he  has  appealed,  is 
against  him.  If  it  can  be  shewn  that  these  children 
were  not  adults,  then  our  Saviour's  calling,  o.vto.,  them, 
unto  him,  will  shew  that  he  expected  the  call  to  be  an- 


\ 


(     283     ) 

swered  by  those  parents  who  brought  them  to  him,   or 
those  disciples  who  forbade  them. 

In  Luke  xviii.  15.  it  is  said,  "  And  they  brought  un- 
^^  to  him  also,  <•»  H^^n^  in f ants, ^^  In  the  next  verse,  Jesus 
says,  "  Suffer,  fa  rtat$ta,  little  children,  to  come  unto  me.'^ 
Now  the  question  is,  what  do  Brephos  and  Pais  mean  ? 
In  making  out  an  answer,  it  would  be  well  to  follow  a 
rule  which  Dr.  Ryland,  an  eminent  Baptist  controver- 
sialist of  England,  has  expressed  as  follows,  viz.  "  Every 
"  word  should  be  taken  in  the  primary,  obvious,  and  or- 
''  dinary  meaning,  unless  there  be  something  in  the 
*^  connexion  or  in  the  nature  of  things  which  requires 
*^  it  to  be  taken  otherwise. '^(i^;)  And  here  let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  in  the  time  of  Hesychius,  the  ancient  Glos- 
sographer,  "  the  primary,  obvious  and  ordinary  mean- 
'^  ing"  of  Pais  was  so  decidedly  childy  that  he  did  not 
define  it,  but  took  this  meaning  for  granted  in  his  expla- 
nation of,  rtatSKJxot,  boySy  which  he  said  were  "  o*  «« 
^^  TtatSwv  st5  avS^aj  ^efaSau/ovT'fj,  tJiose  who  avB  changing 
'^ from  children  to  men,^^  One  reason  of  the  wonder 
expressed  on  the  occasion  of  '^  the  children,  tov^  TtatSaj,'^ 
crying  in  the  temple,  was  their  tender  age  ;  for  they 
were  called  "  babes  and  sucklings."(^)  The  age,  how- 
ever, of  those  who  suffered  under  Herod,  cannot  be 
easily  mistaken,  since  it  is  said  that  he  "  sent  forth  and 
''  slew,  rtttvfaf  tovi  rtatSaj,  all  the  children,  that  were  in 
'^  Bethlehem,  and  in  all  the  coasts  thereof,  from  two 
'^  years  old  and  under, ^^[y) 

(«;)  Taylor's  4th  Letter  to  a  Deacon  oF  a  Baptist  Church,  p.  28, 
\x)  Matt.  xxi.  15.  16.  {y)  Matt.  ii.  16. 


(     284     ) 

As  to  the  word  Brephos^  Symmachus  renders  Ps.  viii. 
2,  "  Out  of  the  mouth  of  bahes,  /Spj^Qr,  and  sucklings^ 
*^  thou  hast  perfected  praise/'  He,  of  course,  meant 
literal  infants,  as  Dr.  Gill  admits  that  "  the  Jewish  wri- 
^^  ters  generally  so  understand  it ;''  though  the  Doctor 
himself  very  sagely  confines  it  to  adults,  notwithstanding 
the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  which  applies  it  to 
infants.  The  New  Testament  gives  farther  evidence  of 
this,  in  what  the  Martyr  Stephen  says  concerning  the 
cruelty  of  the  Egyptians  to  the  Israelites.  He  says  that 
''  they  cast  out  to.  iic^^Tj  dvT-wr,  their  young  childrenJ\z) 
A  reference  to  the  first  chapter  of  Exodus  will  shew  that 
these  were  what  Peter  calls  ^'  a^t^yzwrino.  ?^t^ri^  new-born 
babesy[a)  Our  new-born  Redeemer  was  twice  called 
^^  BREPHOS,  the  Babe,  lying  in  a  manger.'Y^)  John  the 
Baptist  is  twice  called  "  brephos  en  te  koilia,  the 
unborn  infanty{c)  The  use  of  it  in  Apocryphal  writ- 
ings is  to  the  same  end.  In  the  Maccabees,  it  is  said 
concerning  children  lately  circumcised,  that  the  Offi- 
cers of  Antiochus  "  hanged,  to.  i3^ft»:?  the  infants,  about 
their  necks."(c?)  For  administering  circumcision  in 
another  instance,  the  Officers  of  Ptolemy  are  said  to  have 
led  the  captive  mothers  round  about  the  city,  "  ta  /3^£t»7, 
the  babes,  hanging  at  their  breast.''(e)  And  in  Ecclus. 
xix.  11,  it  denotes  an  infant  as  yet  unborn.  Damm,  in 
his  Homeric  Lexicon,  shews  that  both  these  meanings 
of  the  word  are  in  accordance  with  Classical  usage  :  and 
the  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary  has  shewn  that  "  the 
primary,  obvious,  and  ordinary  meaning"  of  Bkephos, 

(z)  Acts  vii.  19.  (a)  1  Pet.  ii.  2.  (A)  Luke  ii.  12.  16. 

(c)  Luke  I  41,  44.  (d)  1  Mac.  i.  61.  (e)  2  Map.  vi.  10. 


(     285     ) 

according  to  Eustathius  and  Phavoriniis^  is,  "  A  new- 
"  horn  child,  nourished  by  the  teat,  from  his  birth,  un- 
"  til  he  be  four  years  oldP  Dr.  Wall  has  shewn(t(;)  that 
Mr.  Gale's  supercanonical  book  of  the  fourth  century, 
called  Clemenfs  Constitutions,  produces  this  text  in 
support  of  infant  baptism,  as  follows,  viz.  ^^  Baptize  your 
''  infants,  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
''  nition  of  God ;  for  he  says,  '  Suffer  little  children  to 
"  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
''  kingdom  of  God.' ''  And  the  author  of  a  ^^  Defence 
of  the  Waldenses,''(o)  has  quoted  their  interpretation  of 
this  text,  as  exhibited  in  their  own  Confession  of  Faith, 
presented  at  diiferent  periods  to  Ladislaus  and  Ferdi- 
nand, kings  of  Bohemia,  in  which  this  language  occurs, 
viz.  "  Likewise  they  teach  that  children  are  to  be  bap- 
^'  tized,  and  to  be  consecrated  to  Christ,  according  to 
''  his  word,  '  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
^*  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
''  ven.' '' 

Seeing  that  Inspired  usage,  and  Classical  and  Apocry- 
phal usage  harmonize  in  proving  that  these  words  de- 
note literal  infants;  and  seeing  that  the  Primitive  church 
and  that  of  the  Waldenses  considered  the  text  in  ques- 
tion as  authorizing  infant-baptism ;  then  we  are  bound 
by  Dr.  Ryland's  own  rule,  to  believe  that  infants  must 
be  here  intended,  according  to  "  the  primary,  obvious, 
"  and  ordinary  meaning,  unless  there  be  something  in 
^^  the  connexion  or  in  the  nature  of  things,  which  re- 
^'  quires  it  to  be  taken  otherwise."  In  the  present  case, 

(w)  Defence  against  Mr.  Gale,  p.  45.  (o)  Pagp  48, 


(     286     ) 

however,  both  the  connexion  and  the  nature  of  things 
are  in  our  favour.  With  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  re- 
semblances, would  it  not  be  as  well  to  hold  up  lambs  or 
doves  to  the  audience,  and  say,  "  of  such  is  the  church 
below,''  meaning,  "  of  such  adults  as  resemble  these 
lambs  or  doves  in  innocence  ?''  But  suppose  that  they 
were  Dr.  Gill's  adults  instead  of  infants,  who  were  set 
forth  to  the  audience.  Then  it  would  mean,  "  of  such 
adults  as  resemble  these  adults,  is  my  church  below." 
But  let  us  see  how  the  connexion  supports  this  interpre- 
tation. Is  it  said  that  these  persons  came  to  Christ  them- 
selves ?  No,  their  parents  brought  them ;  "  and  his 
disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them,"  from  the 
apparent  impropriety  of  obtruding  children,  such  as  Ig- 
natius was  at  that  time,  (for  he  is  said  to  have  been  one 
of  these  infants,)  upon  the  attention  of  one  w^ho  was  so 
much  occupied  with  adults.  But  the  context  says, 
moreover,  that  "  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,"  or,  as 
the  Syriac  says,  ^^upon  his  arms,"  or,  ^^into  his  bosom," 
according  to  the  Ethiopic  and  Persic  translations,  as  re- 
ported by  Dr.  Gill :  so  that  the  context  and  exigency  of 
the  case  conspire  with  the  best  usage  and  the  most  au- 
thentic definitions,  to  prove  that  our  Saviour  held  lite- 
ral infants  in  his  arms,  and  that,  of  such  literal  infants, 
he  declared  his  "  church  below"  to  be  composed.  If 
then,  they  be  members  of  the  Christian  church,  they 
became  so,  by  receiving  baptism,  the  initiatory  seal; 
wherefore,  instead  of  a  repeal  of  the  Old  Testament  law 
on  this  subject,  we  here  have  an  evident  confirmation  of 
it. 


(     287     ) 


POINT  II. 

4^n  inspired  Apostle  so  recognizes  the  seminal  holiness  of  in- 
fonts,  as  to  confirm  the  command  for  administering  to  them 
the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church. 

'^  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the 
^^  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
'^  husband  :  else  were  your  children  unclean ;  but  now 
^^  are  they  holyP{f) 

In  common  with  Pedobaptists  in  general,  I  am  consci- 
entiously convinced,  that  the  holiness  here  attributed  to 
the  infants  of  believers,  is  that  seminal  holiness  which 
entitles  them  to  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church.  But 
as  this  is  warmly  and  pertinaciously  disputed  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  other  sorts  of  holiness,  I  am  willing,  with  the 
leave  of  my  hearers,  to  give  a  candid  and  patient  atten- 
tion to  every  interfering  claim.  If,  then,  ecclesiastical 
holiness  be  not  here  intended,  what  sort  was  intended  ? 
Was  it  spiritual  holiness,  or  domestic  holiness,  or  civil 
holiness  ?  Let  us  examine  their  respective  claims. 

1 .  Spiritual  holiness.  Might  I  not  say  that  this  inter- 
pretation is  quashed  by  matter  of  fact?  as  also,  by  what 
the  scriptures  say  of  the  small  proportion  of  those  who 
are  sanctified  from  their  birth,  whether  one  or  both 
parents  professed  religion.  On  this  subject,  I  agree  with 
a  remark  of  my  Opponent,  in  his  spurious  publication 
against  Mr.  Walker,(^)  where  he  says,  ''  If,  then,  their 
^'  sin  or  sins,  previous  to  sprinkling,  had  been  forgiven 
*'  them,  they  would  have  had  all  their  sins  forgiven 

(/)  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  (5")  p.  175, 


(     2&8     ) 

'^  them,  and  would  have  led  lives  quite  different.  They 
''  would  have  been  sanctified  as  well  as  pardoned  :  for 
^^  pardon,  justification,  sanctification,  and  salvation,  are 
^^  inseparably  connected.'^ 

2.  Domestic  holiness.  Dr.  Macknight,  who  misses 
very  few  opportunities  of  declining  from  the  good  old 
way,  thinks  that  each  of  the  parties  is  sanctified  or  made 
fit,  by  his  own  affections,  to  live  with  the  other :  else 
were  their  children  unholy ;  that  is,  their  parents  would 
not  love,  nor  (on  that  account,)  feed  and  educate  them. 
One  of  the  most  imposing  of  his  remarks  in  support  of 
this  theory,  is,  a  very  plausible  insinuation  that  the  ho- 
liness of  the  children  depends  ''  on  their  parents  living 
together.'^  This,  like  a  thousand  other  things  of  his,  is  a 
mere  figment  of  his  own  fancy.  So  also  is  his  pretend- 
ing that  a  separation  of  the  parents  would  deprive  the 
children  of  food  and  education.  Is  this  the  conduct  of 
a  believing  father,  when  deserted  by  an  idolatrous  wife? 
or  would  the  scriptures  have  sanctioned  a  separation  at- 
tended with  such  consequences  ?  As  there  was  a  want 
of  evidence  in  his  Commentary  and  note,  he  refers  for 
additional  light  to  his  Essay  4th,  Section  38th,  where 
he  shews  that  the  word  common  means  unclean  ;  a  thing 
which  no  one  denies.  He  refers  also  to  the  53d  Section 
of  the  same  Essay,  where  he  endeavours  to  prove  that 
the  word  sanctify  has  the  desired  meaning,  by  referring 
to  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  the  very  text  in  question  ;  thus  reason- 
ing in  a  circle,  by  making  the  Essay  prove  the  note,  and 
the  note  the  Essay. 

3.  Civil  holiness.  As  the  former  interpretation  relat- 
ed to  the  domestic  comforts  of  the  married  state,  tliis 


(     289     ) 

relates  to  the  lawfulness  of  marriage.,  as  a  civil  transac- 
tion.    It  is  as  old  as  the  seventeenth  century  ;  for  it  was 
then  urged  by  the  Anabaptists,  in  their  public  Debate 
with  Doctor  Featley.(/i)-    The  amount  of  it  is  this  ;  that 
the  sanctijication  of  the  parents  to  each  other,  is  sim- 
ply their  marriage  to  each  other ;  and  the  holiness  of 
the  children  is  simply  their  legitimacy.      Dr.  Gill  es- 
pouses this  scheme  very  decidedly  ;  and  rests  his  whole 
defence  of  it,  upon  ^^  the  Misnic,  Tahnudic,  and  Rab- 
''  binic  writings  !!  P^  From  these  he  gives  a  long  quo- 
tation, in  which  he  correctly  asserts  that  "^e  word 
^'  which  is  used  to  sanctify,  or  be  sanctified,  in  the  He- 
^'  brew  language,  is  used  to  espouse,  or  be  espoused,  no 
'^  less  than  ten  times."   He  professes  to  give  this  extract 
^^  instead  of  a  thousand  that  might  be  produced."     Does 
not  this  armament  loom  as  formidably  as  the   Spanish 
Armada?      But  there  is  something  else  belonging  to 
Spain   which  can  match  it  exactly.      The  writings  of 
Popes  and  Cardinals,  Bishops  and  Monks,  are  to  the 
Roman  Catholics,  as  the  Misnical,  Talmudical,  and  Rab- 
binical writings  are  to  the  Jews,   and,  (in  the  present 
pinch,)  to  Dr.  Gill :  and,  mark  it  well,  that  the  Jewish 
writers  are  not  more  clear  in  converting  sanctification 
into  marriage,  than  the  Popish  writings  are,  in  convert- 
ing marriage  into  sanctification,  or,  into  a  sacrament. 
Now  it  would  have  been  very  easy  for  Dr.  Gill  to  pro- 
duce from  a  Popish  writer,  one  passage,  in  which  mar- 
riage was  called  a  sacrament  ten  times  ;  and  to  give  this 
instead  of  a  thousand  that  might  have  been  produced. 


(A)  See  the  8th  page  of  the  Doctor's  account  of  that  combat, 

O  o 


(     290     ) 

Why,  then,  does  not  Dr.  Gill  believe  marriage  to  be  a 
sacrament  J  as  well  as  that  saiictijication  is  marriage  ? 
The  evidence  for  both  is  much  the  same,  as  to  weight 
and  respectability.     The  one  is  supported  by  the  tra- 
ditionary legends  of  Jewish    Rabbi's,    written  several 
hundred  years  after  Christ  ;  the  other  is  supported  by 
the    traditionary   legends  of    Popish  Doctors,  written 
several  hundred  years  after  the  Apostles.     The  one  is 
supported,  as  Dr.  Gill  says,  by  the  writings  of  Jerome, 
a  Christian  Father ;  the  other  is  supported,  as  the  Pa- 
pists say,  by  Jerome's  Latin  Vulgate,  in  Eph.  v.  32, 
where  he  expressly  says,  concerning  marinage,  '^  sa- 
^'  CRAMENTUM  HOC  MAGNUM  EST,  this  ts  a  great  sa- 
*^  cramentJ^     Here  we  have  Jerome  and  the  Rabbi's 
for  the  Baptist  error,  and  Jerome  and  the  Doctors  for 
the  Popish  error ;  all  of  them  living  and  writing  se- 
veral hundred  years  after   the    Apostles,    and  having 
no  more  right  to  an  arbitrary  dictation  in  sacred  criti- 
cism,   than  Dr.    Gill   or  the  Pope.     For  this  I  have 
the    authority    of    Dr.    Gill     himself;    for    although 
he  pleads    Jewish    inventions,    to    relieve  him  from  a 
New    Testament   authority,    which    they  have  never 
expounded,  yet  he  refuses  to  follow  them  in  the  very 
same  view  of  an  Old  Testament  text  which  they  have 
explained.     While  he  is  endeavouring  to  prove  that 
Paul's  sanctification  means  marriage,  he   strengthens 
his  cause    by   saying,    ''  So    the    Jews    interpret  the 
word  sanctified,    in   Job.  i.  5.  he  espoused  to  them 
^^  wives,'^     Yet  when  you  turn  over  to  the   Doctor's 
commentary  upon  Job.  i.  5.  you  find  that  he  pays  no 
attention  to  these  Jewish  espousals,  but  espoiises  him- 


{     291      ) 

self  the  Cliristiaii  interpretation  of  the  passage,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  favour  our  cause  in  more  respects  than  one. 

On  this  subject,  I  have  a  question  to  propose  to  the 
learned  world.  I  wish  information.  If  marriage  is  in- 
tended in  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  then  I  ask,  Is  there  another 
instance  to  be  found,  in  the  Greek  Scriptures,  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation,  where  the  object  is  governed 
by  the  preposition  en  ?  In  the  present  text,  the  suppo- 
sed marrying  verb  is  in  the  Passive  voice,  and  the  object 
in  the  dative  case,  governed,  not  by  the  verb,  but  by 
the  aforesaid  preposition.  We  have  marrying  verbs  in 
the  passive,  in  Mk.  x.  12.  Rom.  vii.  4.  Gen.  xx.  3. 
Deut.  xxi.  13.  xxii.  22.  but  these  verbs  govern  the  ob- 
ject in  the  dative,  without  an  intervening  preposition. 
We  have  such  verbs  in  the  active,  in  Is.  Ixii.  5.  Deut. 
xxv.  5.  with  which  you  might  collate  Ecclus.  xxv.  8. 
16.  2  Mace.  i.  14.  but  these  verbs  also  govern  the  dative 
of  the  object,  without  an  intervening  preposition.  We 
have,  moreover,  such  verbs  in  1  Chr.  ii.  21.  Neh.  xiii. 
23.  Matt.  V.  32.  xix.  9,  2ice.  Mk.  vi.  17.  x.  11. 
Luke  xiv.  20.  but  they  all  govern  the  accusative  with- 
out an  intervening  preposition.  If,  therefore,  we  may 
judge  by  the  style  of  the  Apostles,  and  Evangelists,  and 
Alexandrian  Jews,  who  formed  the  style  of  the  whole 
nation,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  Paul  meant  mar- 
riage, when,  in  the  text  under  review,  he  spoke  of  sane- 
tijication  ;  especially,  when  sanctijication  does  not  sig- 
nify marriage  nor  legitimacy  in  any  other  place  in  the 
whole  scriptures. 

But  Dr.  Gill  well  knew,  that  after  the  Apostles  were 
dead,  and  his  Jewish  Rabbi's  of  a  later  date  came  on  the 


(     292     ) 

stage,  they  cultivated  an  .invincible  hostility,  not  only  to 
the  New  Testament,  but  to  their  own  most  venerable 
Septuagint,  because  it  was  so  eminently  useful  in  illus- 
trating and  supporting  the  New  Testament.  It  was 
after  this  invidious  apostacy  from  the  ancient  style  of 
their  nation,  that  they  began  to  call  marriage^  sanctifi- 
cation  :  but  as  this  usage  is  a  mere  innovation,  perfectly 
unknown  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  it  is  of  no  more 
authority  in  controlling  sacred  criticism,  than  is  a  news- 
paper published  last  year  in  Modern  Greek. 

Let  us,  therefore,  turn  to  an  unadulterated  Hellenist 
of  the  first  Century,  and  ask  how  he  would  understand 
the  text.  ^^  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified 
f^  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by 
^  the  husband  :  else  were  your  children  unclean  ;  but 
^^  now  are  they  holy."  That  he  would  never  conjecture 
that  marriage  and  legitimacy  were  here  intended,  is  evi- 
dent from  this  important  consideration ;  that  he  had 
never  before  heard  such  language  with  such  a  meaning. 
Notwithstanding  this,  the  language  would  be  per- 
fectly familiar,  and  the  meaning  perfectly  obvious. 
Every  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  every  part 
of  Jerusalem  and  Judea  brings  consecrated  things  to 
his  view.  There  he  sees  a  holi/  land  and  ground  ;(/) 
hall/  mountains  and  hills ;  ( /)  holi/  cities  and  houses, 
chambers,  instruments,  and  vessels; (A)  holi/  tithes  and 
first-fruits,  gifts,  off*erings,  oblations,  and  portions  ;(/} 

(i)  Zech.  ii.  12.  Ex.  iii.  5.  (j)  Is.  xxvii.  12.  Ps.  xcix.  9. 

{k)  Is.  Ixiv.  10.  1  Chr.  xxix  3.  Ez.  xlii.  13.  Num.  xxxi.  6.  1  Sam. 
xxi.  5. 

(/)  Lev.  xxvii.  30.  Ez.  xlviii,  14.  Ex.  xxviii.  38.  2  Chr.  xxxv.  13.  Ez. 
xlviu.  10.  3tlv.  14. 


(     293     ) 

holy  garments  and  crowns  ;(m)  holy  nation^  congrega- 
tion, and  flock, (;?)  holy  persons,  and  holy  seed.(o) 

The  holy  flock  here  mentioned,  Dr.  Gill  justly  con- 
siders as  meaning  "  Flocks  of  sheep  which  were  conse- 
''  crated  and  set  apart  for  holy  uses,  for  sacrifices/' 
These  flocks  of  sheep  Ezekiel  expressly  compares  to 
^'  flocks  of  men.''  The  Doctor  reminds  us,  that  in  one 
of  these  holy  flocks  of  sheep,  there  were  as  many  as 
thirty  thousand  lambs  given  by  king  Josiah  alone. (j&) 
The  sheep  and  lambs  of  these  holy  flocks,  corresponded 
with  the  adults  and  infants  of  those  "  flocks,  of  men.'' 
which  they  typified  ;  for  the  first-born  of  the  one  and 
the  other  were  sanctified,  or  made  holy,  to  the  Lord. 
The  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  therefore,  justly  in- 
sists, that  when  our  Saviour  said  to  Peter,  "  feed  my 
'^  sheep,"  ^'  feed  my  lambs,"  he  had  regard  to  the 
Apostle's  duty  toward  the  adults  and  infants  of  the 
church  \{q)  and  these  were  assuredly  embraced  in  the 
holy  seed  mentioned  by  Ezra.  Our  Hellenistic  Jew, 
then,  would  find  himself  perfectly  at  home,  when  ex- 
amining the  New  Testament  regulations  concerning  holy 
children  ;  for  they  are  the  holy  seedy  to  which  he  con- 
siders himself  as  belonging,  from  his  infancy.  He 
would  therefore  say,  as  we  have  done,  that  the  Apostle 
here  speaks  of 

4.  Seminal  holiness.     Dr.  Macknight  and  Dr.  Gill 


{m)  Lev.  xvi.  4.  Ex.  xxix.  6. 
In)  Ex.  xix.  6.  Num.  xvi.  3.  Ez.  xxxvi.  38. 
(o)  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  2.  Ex.  xiii.  2.  (Comp.  Luke  ii,  23.)Ezr.  ix.  2. 
Ifi)  OnEz,  xxxvi.  38.  Comp.  2  Chr.  xxxv.  7 — 9, 
(</)  John  xxi.  15.  16.    Taylor's  Fourth  Letter  to  a  Deacon  of  a  Bap- 
tist church,  p.  28. 


(     294     ) 

think  that  our  scheme  refutes  itself,  by  understanding 
sanctificati6n  in  different  senses.  They  should  remem- 
ber, however,  that  this  is  correct  with  regard  to  many 
words,  and  with  none  more  than  the  one  in  question. 
Dr.  Pocock,  in  his  notes  on  the  Porta  Mosis  of  Maimo- 
nides,  says,    ''  Notissimum  est  et  quod  sanctum, 

^^  ET  QUOD  A  SANCTITATE  LONGISSIME  REMOTUM  EST  : 

^'  It  is  very  remarkable  that  [it  signifies]  both  ivhat  is 
"  holy,  and  what  is  farthest  reinoved  from  holiness,^^ 
No  Hebrew  scholar  will  probably  deny,  that  it  signifies 
one  who  is  separated  or  consecrated  to  purity ,  and  one 
who  is  consecrated  or  separated  to  prostitution  ;  which 
latter  sort  of  consecration  the  sacred  writers  knew  to 
exist  among  the  Heathen.  Yet  even  in  this  diametrical 
opposition  of  meanings,  you  find  the  general  idea  of 
separation  consistently  maintained.  So  it  is  in  the  Pedo- 
baptist  explanation  of  the  text.  The  Old  Testament 
law  passed  an  indiscriminate  sentence  of  desec7*ation 
upon  all  foreign  and  mingled  seed.  It  made  no  distinc- 
tion between  a  child  born  of  a  Jew  and  Heathen,  and  a 
child  born  of  two  Heathens.  They  were  both  alike  un- 
holy, and,  on  that  account,  not  to  be  circumcised.  But 
what  says  the  New  Testament  law  ?  It  informs  us  that 
there  is  now  a  distinction  between  mingled  seed,  and 
that  which  is  entirely  foreign ;  so  that  the  former  is  holy, 
although  the  latter  is  not.  The  connexion  of  the  believ- 
ing with  the  unbelieving  parent,  so  far  separates  the 
unbeliever  from  the  mass  of  the  Heathen  world,  that  the 
child  is  not,  as  formerly,  polluted  by  his  Heathenism  ; 
but  is  holy^  and,  on  that  account,  has  a  right  to  the  Chris- 
tian circumcision,  as  if  both  parents  were  believers. 


(    ^95    ) 

But  now  let  us  try  Macknight  and  Gill  by  their  own 
rule,  and  read  the  text  upon  their  plans,  with  that  con- 
sistency which  they  demand    of   others.     In   making 
Macknight  consistent,  I  shall  read  his  own  paraphrase  of 
the  two  first  clauses  of  the  text,  and  then  make  the  rest 
to  accord  with  them.     It  is  as  follows,  viz.     ^^  For  the 
'^  Infidel  husband  is  sanctified^  is  fitted  to  remain  mar- 
''  ried  to  the  believing  wife,  by  his  affection  for  her ; 
''  and  the  infidel  wife  is  sanctified,  to  the   believing 
^'  husband,  by  her  affection  for  him,  otherwise  certain- 
''  ly  your  children  ivotild  be^^   '  unclean,  unfitted  to  re- 
^  main  married  to  their  parents,  for  want  of  affection, 
'  but  now  are  they  holy,  fitted  by  their  affection  to  re- 
'  main  in  the  married  state.'     This  is  making  sanctifica- 
tion  the  same  thing  throughout ;  that  is,  a  fitness  for 
marriage,  by  means  of  affection  :  whereas,  in  one  part 
of  the  text,  Macknight  makes  it  mean  the  reception  of 
food  and  education,  which  many  doubtless  receive  with- 
out being  fit  for  marriage. 

But  as  Dr.  Gill  asserts  that  holiness  is  marriage  itself, 
instead  of  a  fitness  for  marriage,  let  us  try  how  a  consis- 
tent translation  upon  this  plan  will  do.  I  shall  give  the 
two  first  clauses  in  his  own  words,  as  follows,  viz.  "  For 
"  the  unbelieving  husband  is  espoused  to  the  wife,  andj 
''  the  unbelieving  wife  is  espoused  to  the  husband  :''• 
^  else  were  your  children  unmarried  ;  but  now  are  they 
'  married.'  This  makes  holiness  signify  marriage,  con- 
sistently throughout  the  verse :  whereas  the  Doctor 
makes  it  mean  the  marriage  of  an  adult  in  one  place,  and 
in  another  the  legitimacy  of  an  infant ;  which  are  two 
distinct  things,  since  there  are  many  legitimate  infa^s^its 


(     296     ) 

which  are  not  married,  and  many  illegitimate  adults  who 
are  married. 

In  this  procedure  there  is  a  grossness  of  inconsistency 
which  deserves  your  particular  attention.     What  Paul 
means  by  the  holiness  of  infants,  is  the  very  point  in  dis- 
pute.    We  say,  that  it  means  seminal  holiness^  or  a  he- 
reditary qualification  for  initiation  into  the  church,  a 
meaning  which  is  abundantly  established  by  scriptural 
usage.     Dr.  Gill  says,  that  it  means  the  civil  legitimacy 
of  infants,  in  which  sense  it  is  not  used  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  he  evidently  wishes  his  reader  to  believe  that 
his  Jewish  writers  support  this  interpretation  by  innu- 
merable examples.     Would  you  suppose,  that  after  his 
dazzling  display  of  ^^Misnic,  Talmudic,  and  Rabbinic'^ 
authorities,  he  has  not  quoted  one  single  proof  that  even 
an  infidel  Jew  ever  understood  holiness  to  mean  legiti- 
macy of  birth  ?   The  ten  cases  which  he  has  cited,  and 
the  ten  thousand  to  which  he  refers,  prove,  without  one 
alledged  exception,  that  his  Jewish  writers  considered  it 
to  mean  marriage,  a  signification  which  is  sometimes  in- 
compatible with  the  other:  for  if  holiness  mean  mar- 
riage, then  Jeptha,  the  deliverer  of  Israel,  was  holy;  but 
if  it  mean  legitimacy,  then  Jeptha  was  unholy.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Doctor's  own  account,  therefore,  his  interpre- 
tation is  perfectly  destitute  of  support,  from  the  Bible, 
the  Talmud,  or  any  thing  else. 

A  few  minutes  ago,  I  mentioned  that  the  Doctor  dif- 
fered from  the  Jewish  writers  in  their  interpretation  of 
Job  i.  5,  and  that,  on  that  passage,  he  favoured  our  cause 
in  more  respects  than  one.  He  agrees  with  our  Trans- 
lators, *^  Job  sent  and  sanctified  them.*'    The  Jews  read 


(     297     ) 

it,  ^^  He  espoused  them  to  wives/'  On  examination,  we 
shall  find  that  their  discrepancy  is  very  remarkable  ;  but 
not  more  so,  than  the  Doctors  agreement  with  us.  For 
the  true  meaning  of  ecclesiastical  holiness,  he  refers  to 
Ex.  xix.  10.  11.  14.  15,  where  he  shews  that  sanctifi- 
cation  is  an  external  washing  of  the  body  and  garments, 
and  abstaining  from  sensual  pleasures,  even  from  lawful 
marriage  !  This  is  the  very  opposite  of  the  Jewish  es- 
pousals. When  ablution  is  used  as  an  outward  sign  of 
spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  holiness,  we  call  it  haptism: 
yet  according  to  Dr.  Gill,  the  washing  just  now  mention- 
ed, signifies  inward  and  ontward  holiness ;  and,  as  if  he 
were  going  to  turn  Pedobaptist  outright,  he  produces 
Gen.  XXXV.  2.  3,  to  shew  that  it  extended  to  households. 
Here  we  have  the  Doctor  proving  that  sanctijication 
means,  not  marriage^  but  a  washing  to  purify  a  man 
and  his  household.  This  is  the  way  in  which  he  should 
have  explained  Paul's  declaration  concerning  holy  chil- 
dren :  for  it  is,  in  fact,  a  confirmation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment command  that  they  should  receive  that  seal  of  ini- 
tiation, which  is  a  sign  of  pardon  and  justification,  and  a 
sign  and  means  of  sanctification  ;  the  form  of  which  seal, 
in  the  days  of  Paul,  was  an  application  of  water. 

It  should  not  be  passed  without  notice,  that  Dr.  Gill 
and  Dr.  Macknight,  and  my  Opponent,  who  for  the  sake 
of  immersion,  are  generally  anxious  to  prove  that,  ev,  \_en,'] 
signifies  in,  are  nevertheless  willing  to  give  up  this  no- 
tion in  the  present  case,  for  the  sake  of  what  they  think 
a  more  important  point.  They  all  consider  it  high  trea- 
son against  criticism,  for  us  to  say  that  en  Ainon,  means 
at  Enony  and  that  en  Jordane,  means,  at  the  Jordan: 

pp 


(      298      ) 

yet  when  it  will  serve  a  turn  against  Pedobaptisnij  they 
can  prove^  as  Dr.  Gill  has  formally  undertaken  to  do, 
that  en  sometimes  means  to.  Notwithstanding  this,  I 
hope  to  prove  from  the  writings  of  these  men  them- 
selves, that  in  such  places  as  our  text,  it  signifies  by. 

Some  time  ago,  I  suggested  a  very  serious  doubt, 
whether  one  instance  could  be  found  in  the  whole  Greek 
Scriptures,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  in  which,  after 
a  marrying  verb,  the  object  was  governed  by  the  pre- 
position en.  To  prove  the  improbability  that  such  an 
instance  can  be  found,  I  shewed  that  the  current  of 
Scripture  is  against  such  a  construction.  But  can 
it  be  said  that  the  current  of  Scripture  is  against  such 
a  construction,  where  verbs  of  sanctifying  and  not  mar- 
rying are  concerned  ?  In  such  cases  there  is  nothing 
more  common  than  for  the  object(r)  to  be  governed 
by  the  preposition  en  ;  and  there  is  nothing  more  com- 
mon than  that  Dr.  Gill,  and  my  Opponent,  and  all 
the  Baptists,  agree  with  us  in  translating  it  hy  instead 
of  to.  In  order  that  you  may  perceive  the  exact  re- 
semblance in  the  construction  of  the  text  and  other 
passages,  I  wish  you  to  mark  the  way  in  which  it 
reads;  *^For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified,  en 
TE  GUNAiKi,  by  the  wife^  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified,  en  to  andui,  by  the  husband,'^  To  save 
your  time  we  shall  quote  parallels,  in  as  few  words  as 
possible.  They  are  as  follows,  viz.  ^'  I  will  be  sancti- 
fied, EN  MESO,  in  the  midst^  Gill,  by  the  children  of  Is- 
rael.'' "  I  will  be  sanctified,  en  doxe  mou,  Gill,  by  my 
^loryJ^^     Besides  which,  half  a  dozen  other  examples 

(r)  Or,  I  might  rather  say,  the  nitans,  agent,  or  author. 


(     299     ) 

from  the  Septuagint  are  at  hand.(s)  To  tliese  we  add 
the  following  from  the  New  Testament,  viz.  ^^Sanctilied, 
EN  ALETHEiAj  hy  the  truthP  "  Sanctified,  en  Theo 
Patki,  hy  God  the  Father,''^  "  En  ho,  hy  which,  he 
was  sanctified/^  "  Sanctified,  en  Pneumati  hagio, 
hy  the  Holy  Spirit  J'  "  Sanctified,  en  Christo  Jesou, 
hy  Christ  Jesus,^^  "  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are 
sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,  en  to  onomati,  in  or 
hy  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  en  to  Pneumati, 
hy  [so  my  Opponent  renders  it,]  hy  the  Spirit  of  our 
God/^(/)  The  two  last  passages  are  in  the  same  Epistle 
with  our  text :  and  all  of  them  are  so  plain,  that  neither 
Macknight,  Gill,  nor  my  Opponent  insinuates  that  they 
relate  to  marriage  or  legitimacy,  or  that  en  signifies  to. 
If,  then,  sanctification  always  means  sanctification,  when 
connected  as  it  is  in  our  text,  why  should  we  make  our 
text  an  exception  ?  and  if  marriage  or  legitimacy  can 
never  be  found  so  connected,  why  should  we  force  them 
into  the  text  ?  Should  we  not  rather  say  with  Tremel- 
lius,  that  the  preposition  used  by  the  Apostle  is  a  He- 
braism, for  PER,  hy ;  which  Castallio  and  the  ancient  Vul- 
gate have  adopted,  notwithstanding  Dr.  Gill's  unproved 
assertion,  that  Jerome,  the  author  of  the  Vulgate,  fa- 
voured his  interpretation. 

The  truth  is,  the  Epistle  of  Jerome  to  Leta,  whose 
Christian  mother  had  married  Albinus,  a  heathen  priest, 
expressly  gives  this  text  the  sanctifying  interpretation, 
even  in  a  stronger  sense  than  I  have  advocated.  He 
makes  the  sanctifying  of  an  unbeliever  to  be  the  con- 

(s)  Lev.  xxii.  32.     Ex.  xxix.  43.  Ez.  xx.  41.  xxxvi.  23.  xxviii.  22. 
25.  xxxix.  27.  xxxviii.  16. 
(0  John  xvii.  19.  Jude  i.  Heb.  x.  29.  Rom.  xv.  16.  1  Cor.  i.  2.  vi,  U. 


(     300     ) 

verting,  ov  prohahility  of  converting  him."(t/)    This  is 
certainly  very  wide  of  that  marrying  or  legitimating 
interpretation  which  is,  without  evidence,  attributed  to 
him  by  Dr.  Gill.     His  pretext  for  this  may  be,  that  in  a 
certain  instance,  Jerome  refers  Paulinas  to  Tertullian's 
explanation  of  this  text.     Now,  although  Tertullian  is 
very  vehemently  claimed  by  my  Opponent,  it  will  ap- 
pear, on  examination,  that  Tertullian  saw  nothing  of 
marriage  or  legitimacy  in  this  text,  but  that  sort  of  holi- 
ness which  is  enjoyed  in  being  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  or,  (as  he  understood  it,)  in  baptism  and  sancti- 
fication,     "  Paulinus  writes  to  Jerome  this  question, 
'  How  are  they  holy,  when  as  without  the  gift  of  the 
'  grace  [viz.  baptism]  given  them  afterward  [after  their 
'  birth]  and  preserved,  they  cannot  be  saved  ?'^  ^  Among 
other  solutions  of  this  question,  Jerome  refers  Paulinus 
to  the  explanation  which  Tertullian  had  given  of  this 
text,  as  follows,  viz.  ^^The  Apostle  says  that  when  born 
'  of  a  sanctified  parent  of  either  sex,  children  are  holy ; 
^  as  from  seminal  prerogative,  so  from  the  instituted  dis- 
'  cipline :  [or,  the  discipline  of  institution  :]  else,  says 
^  he,  were  they  born  unclean  :  but  yet  meaning  to  be 
^  undei'stood  thus  :  that  the  children  of  the  faithful  are 
'  designed  for  holiness^  and  so  for  salvation  ;  that  by  a 
^  pledge  of  such  hope  he  might  plead  for  those  mar- 
'  riages  which  he  would  have  to  be  continued.     Other- 
'  wise,  [or,  as  for  any  other  meaning]  he  knew  well 
'  enough  what  our  Lord  had  determined,  Except  one 
'  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  shall  not  enter 

(u)  Wall's  History,  Pait  1.  Chap.  19.  Sect.  19. 


(     301     ) 

'^  into  the  kingdom  of  God.''(z^)  From  such  evidence  as 
this,  Dr.  Wall  very  honestly  concludes  "  that  Tertullian 
''  differs  from  them  [that  is,  from  Augustine  and  Pela- 
''  gius  in  their  comments  on  this  text,]  only  in  this,  that 
^^  he  [Tertullian]  expounds  the  holiness  that  such  chil- 
^^  dren  have  by  the  prerogative  of  their  birth,  by  these 
''  words,  SANCTiTATi  DESiGNATi,  designed  for  holi- 
"  ness,  because  he  reckons  and  proves  from  Scripture, 
"  that  they  cannot  be  actually  holy,  till  they  are  actually 
^'  baptized ;  and  that  Jerome  and  Paulinus  speak  to  the 
"  same  effect. ''(t(;) 

Tertullian  calls  baptism,  by  v^hich  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers are  made  holy,  institutionis  disciplina,  the 
discipline  of  institution  ;  that  is,  an  ordinance  by  which 
they  are  made  disciples,  according  to  Christ's  appoint- 
ment. Thus  Augustine  considers  it  in  the  following 
passage,  viz.  "  But  that  is  to  be  held  without  any  doubt, 
"  that  whatever  that  holiness,  illa  sanctificatio, 
''  may  be,  it  is  not  available  to  the  making  of  them  Chris- 
"  tians,  or  to  the  pardon  of  sins,  unless  they  be  made  be- 
''  lievers,  fideles,  [according  to  him,  infants  can  be 
''  made  Christians  and  believers]  Christiana  et  eg- 

"  CLESIASTICA  INSTITUTIONE  ET  SACRAMENTIS,  by  the 

"  Christian  and  ecclesiastical  institution  and  sacra- 
"  menisP  That  he  here  means  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, which  is  the  initiatory  institution  of  the  Christian 
church,  is  evident  from  the  words  immediately  following 

{y)  ''Hinc  enim  et  Apostolus  ex  sanctificato  alterutro  sexu  sanctos 
procreari  ait ;  tarn  ex  seminis  prerogativa  quam  ex  institutionis  discipli- 
na," &c.  See  Wall's  History,  Part  1.  Chap.  4.  Sect.  6.  Chap.  19. 
Sect   1 9. 

(7y)  Wall's  Hist  Part.  1.  Chap.  11,  Sect  11. 


(     302     ) 

those  which  have  just  been  quoted,  viz.  '^  For  neither 
^'  are  unbelieving  husbands  or  wives,  how  holy  and  just 
"  partners  soever  they  have,  cleansed  from  the  iniquity 
''  which  keeps  them  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
"  brings  them  to  damnation  ;  nor  are  infants?  of  how  holy 
''  and  just  parents  soever  they  come,  pardoned  the  guilt 
''  of  original  sin,  unless  they  [that  is,  the  one  and  the 
^^  other,]  be  baptized  in  Christ. (^)  The  same  Father, 
in  explaining  this  text  in  relation  to  the  Apostolic 
churches,  says,  "  For  there  were  then  Parvuli 
'^  Christiani,  Christian  infants,  that  were  sanctified, 
''  some  by  the  authority  of  one  of  their  parents,  some  by 
"  the  consent  of  both."(?/)  Here  he  speaks  of  baptized 
infants  as  those  which  were  sanctified  by  parental  autho- 
rity. .In  proof  that  he  undoubtedly  meant  baptismal 
sanctificatiouj  I  would  read  another  passage  reported  by 
Dr.  Wall ;  according  to  whom,  "  St.  Austin,  in  his 
^^  questions  on  Leviticus,  has  this  inquiry ;  How  it  is 
^*  meant  that  Moses  should  sanctify  the  high  priest, 
^^  Lev.  xxi.  8.  when  God  says,  verse  15,  ^I  the  Lord 
^'  do  sanctify  him  V  In  answer  to  which  he  distinguish- 
^^  es  between  the  visible  sanctification  and  the  invisible: 
^'  and  after  some  discourse  that  the  invisible  is  the  chief, 
^'  but  yet  that  the  other  is  not  to  be  neglected,  says, 
^'  'Hence  Cornelius  and  they  that  were  with  him,  when 
^' '  they  appeared  to  be  already  sanctified  invisibly  by 
^'  ^  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  on  them,  were,  for  all  that, 
'^ '  baptized :  nor  was  the  visible  sanctification  counted 
'^ '  needless  because  the  invisible  was  before.^  ^^{z) 


(x)  Wall's  History.  Part  1.  Chap.  19.  Sect.  19. 
ly)  Wall's  History,  Part  1.  Chap.  15.  Sect.  2. 
(r)  Wall's  History,  Part  1.  Chap,  11.  Sect.  19. 


(     303     ) 

That  Chrysostom  also  had  substantially  the  same  views, 
will  appear  from  his  comment  on  1  Cor.  i.  2.  where  he 
says^  that  sanctijication  means  "  the  laver^  [viz.  of  bap- 
tism^] the  cleansing.^^(a)  In  accordance  with  this, 
Bingham  informs  us  that  "  Theodoret  and  others  ex- 
plain the  word^  ay  tot,  saints  ^  or  sanctified  ones,  to  be 
such  as  were  vouchsafed  the  honour  and  privilege  of  bap- 
tism.^^(Z>)  Wall  cites  Ainsworth,  Lightfoot,  Hammond, 
&c.  as  shewing  most  fully  and  clearly  that  this  was  the 
understanding  of  the  Jews,  in  relation  to  the  ceremonial 
sanctifications  of  their  law,  which  indeed  Paul  himself 
calls  diverse  baptisms Xc)  These  authorities  go  to  shew 
that  the  Ecclesiastical  Fathers  expounded  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 
of  infants'  holiness  in  our  sense :  yet,  as  Dr.  Fishback 
and  my  Opponent  pretended,  that,  Calvin  and  Beza  had 
originated  our  doctrine,  that  circumcision  and  baptism 
were  the  same  seal ;  so  Mr.  Tombes,  in  his  Debate  with 
Mr.  Baxter  asserts,  that  we  "  cannot  find  any  one  author 
that  expoundeth  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  of  infants  holiness  in'' 
Mr.  Baxter's  ^^  sense,  before  Luther  and  Zuinglius!!"(c?) 
These  assertions  are  equally  wise,  and  they  both  resem- 
ble that  of  the  Roman  Catholic  priest,  who  said,  that  the 
Reformers  originated  the  Greek  Testament. 

But  in  Mr.  Baxter's  Report  of  his  Debate  with  Mr. . 
Tombes,  he  reminds  him  of  a  singular  concession  which 
he  made  in  relation  to  this  text.  Says  he  to  Mr.  Tombes, 
the  Baptist  champion,  "  You  yielded  that  the  word  sane- 

(a)  Wall's  Hist.  Part.  1.  Chap.  11,  Sect.  19. 

\b)  Bingham's  Antiquities,  Book  1,  Chap.  1.  p.  3.  quoted  in  Wall's  De- 
fence against  Gale,  p.  384. 
(c)  Hebr.  ix.  10.  Wall's  Hist.  Part  1.  Chap.  11.  Sect  19. 
{d)  Baxter's  Report  of  the  Debate,  p.  208. 


(     304     ) 

'^  tify,  and  holy,  is  taken  in  my  sense  near  six  hundred 
''  times  in  scripture,  and  no  where  else  once  in  your 
"  sense  ;  and  yet  pleaded,  that  here  it  must  be  taken  in 
''  yours,  and  not  in  mine,  without  showing  any  ground 
"  for  a  necessity  of  it!^^(e)  Strange  as  this  may  seem, 
the  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary  has  furnished  us  with 
a  concession  no  less  remarkable  on  the  same  text,  from 
one  of  the  most  learned  and  zealous  Baptist  controver- 
sialists now  living.  In  the  close  of  the  preface  of  a  work 
called  ^^The  Baptists  Self- convicted,"  the  Editor  speaks 
as  follows:  viz.  ^^Mr.  Anderson  [the  learned  Baptist,] 
''  abandons  the  brethren  (servants)  of  Lydia ;  he  ex- 
''  pressly  renounces  the  idea  Q>i  legitimacy  as  denoted  by 
^'  the  term  holy  in  reference  to  children ;  and  I  under- 
"  stand  that  nobody  now  thinks  of  arguing  on  the  '  much 
''  water'  of  Enon !  These  are  hopeful  symptoms.''  In  the 
same  Author's  second  series  of  "  Facts  and  Evidences 
^'  on  the  subject  of  Baptism."(/)  he  quotes  Mr.  Ander- 
son's words.  They  are  as  follows,  viz.  "  To  interpret 
"  holy  (Vyta)  as  signifying  legitimate,  is  not  authorized 
^^  by  any  example,  from  sacred  or  profane  writers!!" 
Some  would  think  this  a  surrender  ;  but  it  is  intended 
only  as  a  capitulation :  for  while  this  zealous  Anabaptist 
was  relinquishing  one  untenable  position,  he  was  stipu- 
lating for  another,  which  he  vainly  thought  impregnable. 
He  was  just  exchanging  an  old  exposed  perversion  of  the 
text,  for  a  novel  perversion  which  he  thought  more  plau- 
sible. He  fled  from  Gill's  civil  holiness,  to  take  shelter 
under  Macknight's    domestic  holiness.     He  could  no 

{e)  Baxter's  Report  of  the  Debate,  p.  208.  (/)  p.  64. 


(     305      ) 

longer  believe  that  PauFs  infant  holiness  signified  legi- 
tlmacy,  for  the  very  good  reason*  that  this  meaning  ''  is 
''  not  authorised  by  any  example,  from  sacred  or  profane 
''  writers.'^  From  this  we  should  expect  at  least  a  few 
collations  of  the  word  in  his  newly  discovered  meaning. 
But  what  examples  has  he  given  us,  in  which  either 
Sacred  or  Profane  writers  have  spoken  of  the  holiness 
of  infants,  to  mean  their  clothing  and  lodging,  their  board- 
ing and  schooling,  as  being  "  the  objects'^  of  parental 
"  affection  and  care?"  It  has  been  shewn  that  Macknight 
is  not  only  without  proof,  but  in  opposition  to  proof;  and 
as  for  Anderson,  he  comes  off  with  saying  that  "  If  this 
''  interpretation,  which  is  movo,  probable  than  any  other 
''  that  has  been  proposed,  be  admitted,  the  text  will  not 
''  afford  the  least  countenance  to  the  baptism  of  babes." 
To  this  I  wouM  reply,  that  if  many  other  interpretations 
of  that  cold-blooded  traitor  be  admitted,  the  respective 
texts  will  not  afford  the  least  countenance  to  the  Gospel 
plan  of  salvation.  But  if  this  novel  fancy  of  Macknight's 
be  '^  raore  probable  than  any  other  that  has  been  pro- 
posed," and  if  it  be,  at  the  same  time,  such  decisive  evi- 
dence of  Baptist  principles,  how  comes  it  that  it  ^^contra- 
^'  diets  all  Baptist  writers  for  more  than  a  century  past  ? 
"  How  comes  it  that  this  obvious  meaning  never  occurred 
to  ^^Drs.  Gill,  Stennett,  Ryland,  Mr.  Booth,  &c.  &c?" 
all  of  whom  "  assert  that  the  term  holy  in  this  passage 
"  signifies  legitimate  .^"  And  how  comes  it  that  neither 
the  interpretation  of  these  legitimates,  nor  the  "  more 
probable^^  one  of  Macknight  and  his  illegitimates^  was 
adopted  by  the  ancient  Fathers  ?  but  that  the  Pedobap- 
tist  interpretation  was  followed  by  them,  as  has  been 
Q  q 


(     306     ) 

shewn  from  the  testimony  of  Paulinus  and  Jerome,  Chry-^ 
sostom  and  Augustine,  and  even  my  Opponent's  Baptist 
brother  TertuUian,  and  his  heretical  brother  Pelagius? 
Mr,  Tombes  can  afford  us  a  clue  to  this  mystery,  in  his 
concession  to  Mr.  Baxter,  that  the  word  sanctify,  and 
holy,  is  taken  in  the  Pedobaptist  sense  near  six  hundred 
times,  and  no  where  else  once  in  the  Baptist  sense.  The 
truth  is,  we  follow  broad  scriptural  usage,  both  in  transla- 
ting and  expounding  this  passage :  whereas,  both  in  trans- 
lating and  expounding,  the  Baptists,  not  only  oppose  the 
scriptures  and  the  Fathers,  but  contradict  themselves 
and  one  another,  and  substitute  their  own  arbitrary  in- 
ventions and  incongruous  assertions  for  fair  criticism  and 
solid  exegesis. 

We  have  now  given  that  candid  hearing  which  was 
promised,  to  the  respective  claims  oi spmtual,  domestic, 
civil,  and  seminal  holiness,  in  the  interpretation  of  1  Cor. 
vii  .14.  after  which  it  appears  plain,  that  the  seminal,  or, 
if  you  choose,  the  ecclesiastical  holiness  of  infants,  is  in- 
tended by  the  Apostle,  when  he  says,  ^^For  the  unbeliev- 
^'  ing  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  ynbe- 
''  lieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  :  else  were 
^^  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy :"  or 
f  ^  designed  for  holiness  ;''  as  the  Baptist  Father  Tertul- 
lian  paraphrases  it ;  meaning  that  by  "  seminal  prero- 
f  ^  gative,^^  as  well  as  "  the  discipline  of  institution,"  the 
infants  of  pious  parents  are  designed  for  baptism  ;  an 
ordinance  which  Augustine,  in  conformity  with  Jewish 
and  Christian  usage,  inspired  and  uninspired,  expressly 
calls  '^  the  visible  sanctijication.'^^  Instead,  therefore,  of 
a  repeal,  we  here  have  a  New  Testament  confirmation 


(     307     ) 

of  the  command  for  administering  to  infants  the  initiato- 
ry seal  of  the  church. 

POINT  III. 

*ds  the  Scriptures  recognize  the  discipleship  of  infants,  in." 
faults  must  be  contemplated  in  our  Lord's  command  to 
his  Apostles  J  to  disciple  all  nations  by  baptism, 

"  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  {disciple)  all  nations, 
'^  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
''  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  ob- 
"  serve  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you : 
"  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  eVen  unto  the  end  of 
''  the  world.  Amen."(^) 

The  Baptists  have  two  different  and  contradictory 
schemes,  for  resisting  the  force  of  this  text.  One  is,  to 
make  the  verb  matheteuein  signify  to  teach  those  who 
are  capable  of  believing,  and  thus  to  exclude  infants  who 
do  not  believe.  The  other  plan  is,  to  admit  and  even  to 
urge  that  matheteuein  signifies  to  disciple  or  make 
disciplesy  but  that  this  discipleing  is  equivalent  to  con- 
version^  which  conversion,  according  to  them,  the  text 
makes  a  prerequisite  to  baptism  ;  and  thus  they  exclude 
infants  who  give  no  evidence  of  conversion. 

The  first  of  these  courses  is  pursued  by  Mr.  Gale.  In 
advocating  it,  Dr.  Wall  convicts  him  of  as  gross  stupid- 
ity, or  dishonesty,  or  both,  as  can  perhaps  be  found  any 
where  else.  But  admitting,  as  Dr.  Wall  certainly 
proves,  that  Mr.  Gale  was  incapable  of  discussing  the 
Original,  still  our  Translation  has  the  appearance  of 

(ff)  Matt.  xxviiL  19.  20. 


(     308     ) 

favouring  his  cause ;  for  it  gives  the  verb  his  renderin, 
''  teach  all  nations.'^  To  this  I  would  reply  that  the 
same  Translators  have  left  us  the  other  rendering  also. 
Their  margin  reads,  "  or  make  disciples  or  Christians 
"  of  all  nations.'^  Dr.  Wall,  moreover,  argues  that  the 
reason  of  their  putting  the  word  teach  into  the  text 
^^  was,  that  in  the  time  of  making  the  old  translations, 
''  there  were  no  Antipedobaptists  (and  when  the  En- 
^'  glish  Translation  was  made,  none  in  England,)  who 
"  should  thence  take  occasion  for  their  error,  viz.  to 
'^  conclude  that  infants,  though  a  part  of  the  nation, 
''  must  not  be  baptized,  as  not  being  yet  taught.  All 
^^  people  then  understood  it  thus:  That  the  Apostles, 
'^  going  into  the  Heathen  nations,  must  first  teach  and 
^^  convert  the  adult  persons  and  baptize  them ;  and  then 
''  at  their  request,  baptize  their  children,  into  the  same 
"  covenant ;  and  while  all  took  it  so,  there  was  no  hurt 
"  in  letting  the  word  teach  stand.^^(A)  It  is  very  cor- 
rectly granted  by  Dr.  Wall,  "  that  where  the  circum- 
'^  stances  of  the  passage  and  of  the  persons  spoken  of 
"  do  shew  it  to  be  meant  of  adult  persons  now  in  the 
"  state  of  learning,  there  to  make  disciples  does  import 
''  teaching  of  them ;  and  in  such  places  it  does  often 
"  best  fit  the  construction  of  the  sentence  to  express  it 
'^  teach  ;  because,  as  I  said  before,  in  most  places  where 
"  the  word  occurs,  the  discipleing  is  by  present  teach- 
''  ing  :"(f)  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Dr.  observes  that 
"  This  very  thing  of  choosing  a  new  word  on  pur- 
"  pose  for  this  sacrament,  (viz.  discipleing  in  general) 

h)  Wall's  Defence  against  Gale,  p.  172. 
i)  Wall's  Defence,  p.  176. 


I 


(     309     ) 

^^  iS;  of  itself,  a  proof  that  it  is  not  to  be  taken  in  the 
"  same  limited  sense  as  the  word  teaching  ;  for  if  it  had 
*'  been  to  express  teachings  there  were  plenty  of  com- 
"  mon  and  known  words  in  use  for  that/^(y  )  And  let 
it  be  observed  that  one  of  these  common  and  known 
words  for  teaching  is  used  by  our  Saviour  in  the  same 
sentence,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  shew  that  it  was  not 
there  to  be  considered  as  perfectly  synonimous  with 
matheteiiein. 

The  second  course  is  pursued  by  Dr.  Gill,  who  would 
have  discipleship  to  mean  conversion,  and  to  be  so  essen- 
tially prerequisite  to  baptism  as  to  exclude  infants.  On 
John  iv.  1.  he  says,  ^^  The  method  Christ  took  was, 
"  he  first  made  men  disciples,  and  then  baptized  them  ; 
"  and  the  same  he  directed  his  Apostles  to,  saying,  ^  go 
''  '  and  teachy  or  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
'^  '  &c.^  '^  My  Opponent's  New  Testament  goes  so  far 
as  to  translate  it  '^  Convert  all  the  nations,  immersing 
^'  them!''  On  the  present  occasion  he  has  treated  this 
text  as  follows,  viz.  "  I  will  appeal  directly  to  the  law 
''  of  Christ  concerning  this  ordinance  of  his,  which  I 
''  find  in  the  commission  to  baptize."  "  The  law  of 
"  Christian  baptism,  as  expressed  in  the  commission,  is, 
"  Baptize  the  disciples,  or  the  believers  of  the  gospel. 
"  It  thus  reads,  '  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
"  '  baptizing  them  in  the  name'  &c.  Now  Matheteu- 
''  SATE,  the  verb  here  rendered  teach^  is  conceded  by 
'^  all  intelligent  Paido-baptists  to  signify,  make  disciples^ 
''  or  disciple.     This  is  unquestionably  the  proper  ren- 

U  )  Wuira  Defence,  p.  177, 


(     310     ) 

^^  dering  of  the  term  matheteusate.  The  verb  ma- 
"  THETEUo,  when  governing  an  accusative,  Parkhurst, 
"  the  Paido-baptist  lexicographer  says,  signifies  '  to 
^' '  make  a  disciple,^  p.  412.  It  is  not  the  nations  in- 
"  discriminately,  that  were  commanded  to  be  baptized; 
^'  for  TA  ETHNE,  the  nations^  being  neuter,  is  not  the 
*^  antecedent  to  autous,  [them,']  which  is  masculine, 
"  and  which  is  the  accusative  governed  by  matheteu- 
"  SATE.  Its  antecedent  is  mathetas  in  the  verb  ma- 
"  theteusate.  Again  the  phrase,  '  teaching  them  to 
"  '  observe  all  things  which  1  have  commanded  you,^ 
"  respects  the  disciples  exclusively.  For  Christ  did 
"  never  command  nations  indiscriminately  to  observe  his 
"  ordinances,  but  only  his  disciples.  He  commanded 
"  all  nations  to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  and  then, 
"  as  his  disciples,  he  commanded  them  to  keep  his  com- 
"  mandments.  Hence  the  word  rendered  teach  in  the 
"  20th  verse  of  Matt,  xxviii.  is  not  the  same  as  the 
''  word  rendered  teach  in  the  19th  verse.  It  is  didas- 
^'  KONTES,  a  word  importing  the  office  of  a  preceptor  to 
^'  those  who  had  been  put  under  his  tuition.  It  is  ex- 
'^  pressive  of  that  tuition  which  teachers  owe  to  their 
''  disciples  or  pupils.  Two  things  or  two  classes  of 
"  duties  were  enjoined  on  the  Apostles  in  this  commis- 
''  sion.  The  first  was  the  work  of  discipleing  or  ma- 
"  king  disciples.  The  second  was  the  education  of  those 
"  disciples  collected  into  churches  or  scLaols.  Now 
"  inasmuch  as  the  Apostles  were  authorized  by  the  law 
''  of  Christ  to  baptize  disciples,  this  law,  in  fact,  amounts 
"  to  a  prohibition  of  the  baptism  of  those  who  are  not 
"  disciples.     This  I  cannot  now   illustrate  better  than 


(     311     ) 

^^  by  a  reference  to  the  Appendix  of  Debate  with  Mr. 
"  Walker,  to  which  Mr.  M^Calla  so  often  refers,  p.  209. 
"  ^  A  limited  commission  implies  a  prohibition  of  such 
"  things  as  are  not  contained  in  it,  and  positive  laws 
"  imply  their  negative.'  The  commission  under  which 
'^  the  Apostles  acted  was  limited,  as  every  Christian  will 
^'  confess.  The  duties  of  those  who  act  under  it  are 
'^  pointed  out :  and  indeed  every  creature  must  act  un- 
"  der  a  limited  commission,  for  the  very  term  itself  im- 
*^  ports  something  committed  from  a  superior,  or  from 
^'  the  supreme.''(^) 

In  this  argument  my  Baptist  Opponent  has  certainly 
shewn,  that  all  that  Mr.  Gale  has  written  on  the  same 
text,  is  lost  labour.  In  opposition  to  him,  he  proves  that 
the  Apostles  were  commanded  to  '^  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them.''  Yet  he  tries  to  criticise  us  out  of  the 
opinion,  that  the  apostles  discipled  them  in  baptizing 
them.  That  adults  gave  evidence  of  knowledge  and  con- 
version before  baptism,  I  would  not  only  admit,  but  in- 
sist upon.  That  they  and  their  infants  were  formally 
discipled  in  baptism,  I  hope  to  shew.  The  only  obstruc- 
tion presented  by  my  Opponent's  argument,  is  his  en- 
deavour to  shew,  that  if  the  apostles  baptized  disciples, 
they  must  have  been  disciples  before  they  were  baptized, 
and,  of  course,  could  not  be  made  disciples  in  baptism. 
When  I  hear  such  a  plea  from  a  man  of  such  pretensions, 
I  feel  considerably  inclined  to  hand  him  over  to  that  old 
lady,  by  whose  common  sense,  he  tells  us,  he  was  once 
pverpowered,   notwithstanding  all  his  philosophy  and 

{k)  Spurious  Debate  with  me,  pp.  SS,  1!3, 114. 


(     312     ) 

divinity. (/)  Not  long  ago  I  observed  a  housewife  send- 
ing a  messenger  with  thread  to  a  seamstress.  Her  com- 
mission ran  thus;  *^  Remember  and  tell  her  that  this 
black  thread  is  to  sew  the  seams,^^  My  Opponent^  on 
hearing  this  commission^  would  have  said,  '  Madam,  if 
she  is  to  sew  the  seams,  they  must  be  seams  before  her 
sewing  them,  and  therefore  her  sewing  cannot  make 
them  seams.^  If,  on  receiving  tliis  answer,  she  were  to 
report  the  thing  to  a  recruiting  officer  in  the  neighbour- 
hood, he  would  probably  give  a  commission  to  his  ser- 
geant in  the  following  words;  ''^  Go  and  enlisi  that  Phi* 
losopher,  giving  him  the  bounty, ^^  On  this  commission 
my  Opponent  could  meet  the  officer  sword  in  hand,  and 
prove  that  gitnng  the  bounty  does  not  make  a  soldier  ; 
although  he  would  probably  be  very  reluctant  to  try  the 
experiment  of  receiving  the  bounty.  The  following 
argument  on  this  subject  will  quadrate  with  the  one 
which  he  has  given,  to  prove  that  baptizing  does  not 
make  disciples.  It  is  as  follows,  viz.  '^  The  verb  enlist, 
when  governing  an  accusative,  it  is  conceded  by  all  mili- 
tary men,  signifies  to  make  a  soldier.  It  is  not  philoso- 
phers indiscriminately  that  are  commanded,  in  this  com- 
mission, to  be  enlisted.  Philosopher  is  not  the  ante- 
cedent to  him;  its  antecedent  is  soldier,  in  the  verb 
enlist.  For  our  Constitution  did  never  command /;A27o- 
sophers  indiscriminately  to  observe  the  rules  and  articles 
of  war,  but  only  United  States'  soldiers.  It  commands 
all  citizens  to  obey  the  laws,  and  then  as  soldiers,  it  com- 
mands them  to  submit  to  military  regulations.  As,  there- 
fore, the  bounty  wsiS  to  be  given  to  none  but  soldiers,  they 

(/)  Spurious  Debate  with  me,  Preface,  p.  x. 


I 


(     313     ) 

must  have  been  soldiers  before  the  bounty  was  given. 
Wherefore,  giving  the  bounty,  does  not  make  a  soldier; 
and  '  All  my  philosophy  and  divinity/  my  verbs 
and  accusatives,  my  antecedents  and  relatives,  would  be 
perfectly  safe  in  receiving  the  bounty ;  although  at  the 
same  time  I  should  not  like  to  try  it." 

My  Baptist  Opponent  thinks  it  of  great  importance  to 
prove  that  our  Saviour's  commission  does  not  authorize 
the  baptizing  of  the  nations  but  the  disciples.  But  when 
this  point  is  gained,  how  does  it  help  his  cause  ?  If  bap- 
tizing disciples  proves  that  they  must  have  been  disci- 
ples before  they  were  baptized;  then  ^'  Perverting  the 
deceitful  halances,^^  proves,  that  they  were  deceitful  be- 
fore they  were  perverted — "  Grind  meal,^^  means  that 
it  was  meal  before  it  was  ground — and  "  Stripped  the 
naked  of  their  clothing/'  means  that  they  were  naked 
before  Job  stripped  them  ;(m)  which  things  are  absurd. 
If,  therefore,  stripping  the  naked  makes  him  naked; 
i^  giving  the  bounty  to  a  soldier  makes  him  a  soldier;  if 
falsifying  deceitful  balances  makes  them  deceitful  ba- 
lances; if  sewing  a  seam  makes  it  a  seam;  and  li  grind- 
ing meal  makes  it  meal,  then  why  may  not  baptizing  dis- 
ciples make  them  disciples  ? 

It  is  certainly  my  Opponent's  aim  to  prove  that  dis- 
cipleing  does  not,  in  any  case,  mean  mere  initiation,  of 
which  an  infant  may  be  the  subject ;  but  that  it  means 
that  conversion,  of  which  none  but  an  educated  or  en- 
lightened adult  can  be  the  subject.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that,  instead  of  "  disciple  all  nations,"  his  New  Testa- 
Cm)  Isa.  xlvii.  2.  Job,  xxii.  6.  Am.  viii.  5.,  on  which  last  see  Hebr, 
and  Engl.  Margin  and  Pool's  Annotations  on  Job,  xxii,  6. 

R  r 


(     314     ) 

ment  reads  ^^  Convert  all  the  nations."  But  let  us  see 
how  this  will  tally  with  his  argument.  There  he  informs 
us  that,  DiDASKONTES,  teaching^  as  well  as  matheteu- 
SATEj  disciple,  "  respects  the  disciples  exclusively :" 
that  is,  teaching  respects  converted  persons  exclusively; 
since  disciple  and  convert  are,  in  his  view",  convertible 
terms.  This  he  expresses  more  fully  as  follows,  viz. 
"  Two  things,  or  two  classes  of  duties,  were  enjoined  on 
''  the  Apostles  in  this  commission.  The  first  was  the 
"  work  of  discipleing  or  making  disciples.  The  second 
^^was  the  education  of  those  disciples  collected  into 
^'  churches  or  schools.^^  That  is,  the  Apostles  were 
commanded,  first  to  disciple  or  convert  adults,  and  then 
to  educate  or  instruct  them  ! !  Conversion  first,  instruc- 
tion last ! !  This  is  bad  enough  ;  but  I  am  afraid  that  it 
leads  to  worse.  As  my  Opponent  is  for  abolishing  the 
whole  order  of  the  gospel  ministry,  he  would  teach  the 
people  that  they  should  have  neither  instructors  nor  in- 
struction. Bjit  as  he  is  opposed  to  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  regeneration,  he  is  equally  opposed  to 
their  conversion :  so  that,  in  reality,  he  is  for  no  con- 
version, no  instruction.  Now  we  are  for  both  the  one 
and  the  other,  and  in  their  proper  order.  We  believe  that 
as  far  as  adults  are  contemplated  in  our  Saviour's  com- 
mission, they  are  to  be  first  instructed.  This,  by  the 
immediate  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  becomes  an  in- 
strument of  their  conversion.  Then,  when  there  is  evi- 
dence of  their  conversion,  they  are  baptized.  It  was,  as 
Dr.  Wall  intimates,  with  a  view  to  this  process,  in  the 
case  of  adults,  that  our  English  Translators  put  into  the 
text  the  word  teach  instead  of  disciple.     But  their  mar- 


(     315     ) 

ginal  reading,  which  my  Opponent  has  shewn  to  be 
strictly  conformable  to  the  Greek,  evidently  leaves  room 
for  another  order  of  things  in  the  case  of  infants.  In  re- 
lation to  them^  my  Opponent's  exposition  of  the  text, 
loses  a  portion  of  its  absurdity,  and  looks  like  solid, 
scriptural  reality.  Infants,  and  infants  only,  should  be 
first  discipled,  then  instructed.  In  contemplation  of  in- 
fants, it  may  be  truly  said,  as  my  Opponent  has  most  in- 
consistently and  improperly  said  concerning  adults;  that 
"  Two  classes  of  duties  were  enjoined  on  the  apostles  in 
"  this  commission  :  the  first  was  the  work  of  discipleing 
^'  or  making  disciples  ;  the  second  was  the  education  of 
^'  those  disciples  collected  into  churches  or  schools.*' 
This  is  only  saying  that  infants  should  first  be  discipled 
by  baptism,  and  then  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord. 

With  this  view  of  the  subject,  which  my  Opponent's 
own  comment  has  made  necessary,  we  discover  that  this 
text  affords  the  same  authority  for  infant  baptism,  which 
another  passage  quoted  by  him,  furnishes  for  female 
communion.  The  passage  is,  that  Christ  "  gave  it  [the 
bread]  to  his  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat."(w)  He  then 
produces  another  passage  to  shew  that  ^^  there  was  a  cer- 
tain disciple  there  named  Tabitha."(o)  Sne,  tI;erefore, 
being  a  disciple  capable  of  discerning  the  Lord's  body, 
must  have  been  admitted  to  communion.  Wherefore,  all 
other  female  disciples  of  the  same  description  should  be 
admitted  to  the  same*  privilege.  In  a  similar  way,  we 
shew  that  the  apostles  were  commissioned  to  "  disciple 

(n)  Matt.  xxvi.  26.     Spur.  Debate  with  Mr.  Wallcer,  p.  69^ 
(o)  Acts  ix.  36. 


(     316     ) 

all  nations^  baptizing  them.'^  We  then  shew  that  in- 
fants were  recognized  as  disciples ;  and  conclude,  that 
the  apostles  must  have  made  them  so  by  baptizing  them, 
as  they  were  made  disciples  among  the  Jews  by  circum- 
cision. 

In  reference  to  this  severe  discipline,  which  was  im- 
posed upon  Jewish  professors  and  their  infants,  Peter 
says,  ''  Now,  therefore,  why  tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a 
^^  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither 
''  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear?'^  Dr.  Gill  says, 
that  these  disciples  are  ''  Gentile  believers  ;'^  thus  pro- 
bably meaning  to  frown  upon  infant  discipleship,  because 
infants  cannot  believe.  He  admits,  however,  that  this 
yoke  embraces  circumcision,  though  he  says,  that  "  by 
it  here  is  meant  not  circumcision  only  and  barely, ^^  Now 
I  would  ask.  What  sort  of  disciples  they  were,  on  whose 
neck  this  yoke  was  first  imposed?  They  were  chiefly  Jew- 
ish infants.  I  would  again  ask.  What  sort  of  disciples  were 
they,  on  whose  necks  these  Judaizing  teachers  wished  to 
impose  this  grievous  yoke  when  Peter  spoke?  Were 
they  ^*'  Gentile  believers'^  only?  No,  it  was  Gentile  and 
Jewish  believers  and  their  infants ;  which  would  have 
still  thrown  the  burthen  of  circumcision  chiefly  upon  the 
infants,  because  a  great  proportion  of  the  adults  had  been 
already  circumcised.  This  then,  shews,  that  the  apos- 
tles understood  their  commission  as  we  do ;  and,  that  in 
discipleing  all  nations,  they  discipled  believers  and  their 
seed,  ''  baptizing  them." 

That  Jews  and  Christians  thus  understood  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  cannot  be  reasonably  disputed. 
Out  of  Dr.  Wall's  many  instances  of  Jewish  usage,  \  will 


(     317     ) 

report  only  one,  from  Maimonides,  as  follows,  viz.  ^^  An 
''  Israelite  that  takes  a  little  Heathen  child,  or  that  finds 
^'  an  Heathen  infant,  and  baptizes  him  for  a  Proselyte : 
''  behold,  he  is  a  Fro8elyteP{p)  Even  Dr.  Gill  tells  us, 
that  "  Jarchi  interprets  these  children  [mentioned  in 
"  Prov.  xxxi.  28.]  QidisciplesP  The  ancient  Christian 
usage  may  be  gathered  from  Tertullian,  the  great  boast 
of  the  Baptists.  His  views  of  infant  discipleship  may 
be  seen  in  a  passage  quoted  already  under  the  last  point. 
He  there  tells  us,  that  "  The  Apostle  says,  [in  1  Cor. 
"  vii.  14.]  that  children  born  o^id^holy  parent  of  either 
''  sex,  are  themselves  holy^  [that  is  fit  for  baptism,]  as 
'^  well  from  seminal  prerogative,  as  from  the  discipline 
'^  of  institution  [that  is,  Christ's  institution  for  making 
''  disciples, y\r)  That  Tertullian  really  used  this  ex- 
pression to  signify  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  by  which 
Christ  requires  us  to  initiate  adult  and  infant  disciples 
into  the  visible  church,  wall  appear  by  another  passage, 
from  the  same  author,  which  my  Opponent  introduces 
against  Mr.  Walker,  in  the  following  pompous  manner, 
viz.  "  But  I  have  another  testimony  of  Tertullian  to 
'^  read,  w^hich  I  hope  will  be  heard  with  all  the  impar- 
''  tiality  you  can  command.  It  accounts  for  more  than 
"  the  origin  of  infant  baptism.  It  is  doubtless  one  of 
''  the  best  authenticated  testimonies  of  antiquity."  He 
then  proceeds  to  give  Tertullian's  account  of  certain 
unscriptural  customs,  by  which  he  professed  to  initiate 
and  build  up  disciples ^  and  which,  for  that  reason,  this 

(Ji)  Wall's  Hist.  Introduction,  Sect.  4. 

(r)  Wall's  Hist.  Part  1.  Chap.  4.  Sect.  6.  The  Doctor  has  mis- 
taken the  meaning  of  the  word  discipline  hei-e,  as  the  Baptists  do  in  otlitr 
places. 


(     318     ) 

Father  calls  discipli?ies,  but  which  my  Opponent's  trans- 
lation calls  practices^  as  follows,  viz.  '^  If  you  demand 
^^  a  law  for  these  practices^  taken  from  the  scriptures, 
^^  we  cannot  find  one  there.''  He  should  have  trans- 
lated it  in  something  like  the  following  manner,  viz.  ^^  If, 
^^  for  these  disciplines^  and  others  of  the  same  sort,  you 
^^  require  scriptural  authority,  you  can  find  none."(5) 
Among  these  unauthorized  </wc2/?/m 65,  we  find  the  sign  of 
the  cross,  and  the  use  of  milk  and  honey,  and  trine  im- 
mersion in  baptism.  Doubtless,  Mr.  Walker,  against 
whom  this  passage  was  so  vauntingly  produced,  will 
agree  with  Tertullian,  that  the  sign  of  the  cfoss  and  the 
baptismal  use  of  milk  and  honey,  are  unauthorized  in 
scripture,  and  that  trine  immersion  or  any  other  im- 
mersion, is  unauthorized  there :  but  he  will  also 
agree  with  the  same  Father  in  believing  that  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  Christ's  instituted  discipline ^  by  which 
discipleship  is  conferred  upon  those  who  have  a  seminal 
prerogative  derived  from  a  holy  parent  of  either  sex. 
These  infant  disciples  are  thus  initiated  into  the  visible 
church  and  have  been  considered  as  visible  Christians, 
ever  since  the  day  that  ^^The  disciples  were  called 
''  Christians  first  in  Antioch."  Some  infants  must  have 
been  thus  discipled,  immediately  after  this  change  of 
^  denomination,  because,  in  old  age  they  were  the  person- 
al aquaintances  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  speaks  of  them 
in  the  following  language,  viz.  "  Several  persons  among 
^^  us,  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes,  who 


(«)  **  Harum  et  aliarum  ejufsmodi  discifilinarum  si  legem  expostiilas 
scripturarum,  nuUam  invenies."  This  is  quoted  in  a  note  in  Dr.  J.  P. 
Campbell's  Review  of  Robinson,  p.  133. 


(     319     ) 

^^  were  discipled  to  Christ  in  their  childhood^  do  continue 
''  uncorrupted.^^  They  were  discipled  to  Christ;  an 
expression  which  shews  that  they  were  discipled,  not 
by  instruction  or  conversion  or  by  an  unauthorized 
practice,  as  my  Opponent  would  have  it,  but  by  baptism, 
the  instituted  discipline  of  Tertullian,  who  has  declared 
baptism  to  be  a  discipline,  even  in  that  passage  which 
my  Opponent  praises  as  "  one  of  the  best  authentica- 
"  ted  testimonies  of  antiquity/^  in  relation  to  "  the  ori- 
"  gin  of  infant  baptism/'  It  ought  not  to  be  omitted  that 
when  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  their  being  discipled  in 
their  childhood,  he  uses  the  word  pxdon,  the  one  which 
enters  into  the  composition  of  Psedobaptism ;  and  the 
word  which  he  uses  for  discipled,  is  ematheteuthesan,{t) 
the  very  word  used  by  our  Saviour  in  commanding  his 
apostles  to  "  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them/'  Is 
there  then  any  room  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  my 
third  point,  that  ''  As  the  scriptures  recognize  the  dis- 
"  cipleship  of  infants,  infants  must  be  contemplated  in 
''  our  Lord's  command  to  his  apostles  to  disciple  all  na- 
''  tions  by  baptism  ?" 


You  cannot  now  wonder,  if  I  consider  it  proved,  ac- 
cording to  the  tenor  of  my  fifth  proposition,  that  after 
the  authoritative  command  recorded  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, ^'  The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  has 
never  since  been  prohibited  by  divine  authority ;  that 
is,  this  command  of  God,  originally  given  in  the  Old  Tes- 


(     320     ) 

tament,  is  not  repealed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  ra- 
ther confirmed. ^^  According  to  promise,  this  has  been 
shewn  from  what  is  said  in  the  new  Testament,  concern- 
ing "  the  membership  of  infants,  the  holiness  of  infants, 
and  the  discipleship  of  infants.'^ 


My  evidence  in  favour  of  a  divine  command  for  in- 
fant baptism  has  occupied  more  time  than  is  usually  spent 
on  this  subject.  Respect  to  the  good  cause  of  truth, 
and  to  the  understandings  of  my  audience,  required  that  I 
should  pay  a  becoming  attention  to  my  Opponent's  nu- 
merous contradictions  and  objections.  None  of  these 
were  advanced  against  my  fourth  proposition  ;  and  there- 
fore, that  proposition,  though  occupying  one-fifth  of  the 
ground  of  my  argument,  was  passed  over  in  a  few  words. 
But  when  the  other  propositions  were  contradicted,  it 
became  necessary  not  only  to  refute  those  objections,  but 
to  develope  an  unusual  portion  of  the  ample  stores  of 
authority,  which  the  scriptures  contain  in  support  of 
those  propositions.  These  copious  proofs  are  an  evi- 
dence, not  of  the  difficulty,  but  of  the  facility  with 
which  infant  baptism  is  established.  They  shew,  not 
the  doubtfulness,  but  the  certainty  of  the  divine  will. 
Neither  is  this  certainty  in  the  least  afiected,  by  the  fact 
that  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  by  a  circuitous  route ; 
since  the  very  same  complication  has  been  shewn  to  at- 
tend the  argument  for  female  communion  and  many  other 
things  equally  plain.  Let  any  one  take  the  propositions, 
and  duly  consider  them,  distinctly,  and  in  their  mutual 
relation,  and  ponder  well  the  evidence  by  which  they 


(     321     ) 

are  supported,  and  the  conclusion  to  which  they  tend, 
and  he  will  not  wonder  that  the  great  body  of  Christ's 
people,  from  the  beginning,    have  been  Pedobaptists. 
To  them  the  scriptures  shew  plainly,  that,  1.  Abraham 
and  his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a  visible  church 
of  God.     2.  The  Christian  Church  is  a  branch  of  the 
Abrahamic  Church  :    or,  in   other  words^  the  Jewish 
Society  before  Christ,  and  the  Christian  Society  after 
Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  Church,  in  different  dis- 
pensations.    3.  Jewish  Circumcision  before  Christ,  and 
Christian  Baptism  after  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  seal, 
in  substance  J  though  in  different /orm^.    4.  The  admin- 
istration of  this  seal  to  infants  was  once  enjoined  by  di- 
vine   authority;    that  is,    God    once    commanded    it. 
5.  The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  has  never 
since  been  prohibited  by  divine  authority  ;  that  is,  this 
command  of  God,  originally  given  in  the  Old  Testament, 
is  not  repealed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  rather  con- 
firmed.    Therefore,  there  is  now  in  force,   an  unre- 
pealed divine  command,   for  administering  to  believers 
and  their  infants,    the    initiatory  seal  of  the  Church, 
which,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  baptism.     If 
the  premises  be  true,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable :  but 
the  premises  have  been  proved  to  be  true  ;  therefore 
the  conclusion  stands ;  and  my  first  argument  for  infant 
baptism,  drawn  from  a  divine  command,  is  valid,  accord- 
ing to  the  infallible  word  of  God. 


Ss 


(     322     ) 

ARGUMENT  II. 

APOSTOLICAL  PRACTICE.     HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISM. 

According  to  custom,  my  Opponent  represents  the 
argument  drawn  from  household  baptism  as  destitute  of 
probability ;  and,  if  I  riemember  rightly,  there  are  some 
Pedobaptists  who  speak  of  it,  as  if  it  amounted  to  little 
or  nothing  more  Xhdiw  probable  evidence.  I  would  ask 
such  persons,  upon  what  sort  of  authority  do  they  re- 
ceive females  to  communion  ?  Is  it  probable  or  certain  ? 
They  will  say,  with  my  Opponent,  that  the  evidence  is 
indubitable,  because  females  are  disciples,  and  for  disci- 
ples it  was  instituted.  Yet  our  Saviour  gave  no  express 
command  to  administer  it  to  a  female  ;  there  was  no  fe- 
male among  the  disciples  to  whom  he  administered  it  ; 
and  there  is  no  express  record  of  Apostolical  practice, 
in  favour  of  female  communion.  If,  without  these,  the 
evidence  is  certain,  how  much  more  so,  if,  like  infant 
baptism,  it  could  be  supported  by  divine  command  and 
apostolical  practice.  This  practice  of  the  apostles  would 
have  been  taken  as  positive  evidence,  fully  made  out,  if 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  had  recorded  several  instances 
in  which  heads  of  families  communed;  because  heads 
of  families  would  tmhvdiO^  females.  Now  we  have  evi- 
dence, in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  they  baptized 
households^  and  we  hope  to  shew  that  households  embrace 
infants  ;  and  the  fact  that  some  households  are  without 
infants,  is  of  no  more  avail  in  the  one  case,  than  the  fact 
that  some  families  have  no  female  head,  will  avail  in  the 
other.  In  proving  that  infants  are  included  in  the  bap- 
tized households  of  the  New  Testament,  I  shall,  of 
course,  make  liberal  use  of  Taylor's  "  Facts  and  Evi- 
dences," much  of  which  Dr.  Rice,  of  Virginia,  has  co- 
pied, with  valuable  additional  matter  of  his  own. 

But  the  strength  of  our  argument  cannot  be  duly  ap- 
preciated, without  giving  some  attention  to  that  of  my 
Opponent.     He  speaks  as  follows,  viz.* 

*  The  reader  will  notice,  that  from  p.  223  to  note  (w)  on  p.  331,  is  Mr. 
Campbell's  argument. 


(     223     ) 

^'  Mr.  M^Calla  has  adopted  the  criticism  of  Rice  and 
Taylor  on  the  words  oihos  and  oikla,  and  is  to  give  us  posi- 
tive evidence  of  infant  baptism  from  the  import  of  these 
words,  Mr.  Rallston,  who  has  written  what  he  calls  a 
'  Brief  Review'  of  the  Debate  at  Mount  Pleasant,  has  adop- 
ted the  same,  and  mightily  boasts  of  the  importance  of  the 
criticism.  Mr.  M^Calla  tells  us  it  is  founded  on  the  de- 
cisions of  Aristotle  and  Plato,  and  lays  the  greatest  stress 
upon  it.  Now  we  have  not  read  Rice's  Pamphleteer, 
but  we  have  read  some  [all]  of  the  writings  of  Aristotle 
and  Plato  in  the  original,  and  we  have  read  Dr.  Samuel 
Rallston's  '  Condensed  View'  of  the  criticism,  and  we 
boldly  pronounce  that  it  is  a  ^  refuge  of  lies. ^  And  we 
will  go  a  little  farther  yet,  and  affirm,  that  not  only  is  the 
criticism  erroneous,  but  that  assertions  are  made  in  the 
'  Condensed  View'  referred  to,  that  are  downright 
falsehoods.  Mark  it  well,  my  friends,  we  have  said 
falsehoods.  Whether  intentional  or  not,  is  not  my  duty 
to  say.  But  if  I  do  not  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  every 
one  who  understands  English,  and  especially  to  any  one 
who  knows  only  the  Greek  alphabet,  all  that  I  have  now 
affirmed  concerning  this  criticism  and  those  assertions,  I 
will  say  that  I  know  neither  English  nor  Greek.  But 
this  we  will  not  attempt  until  Mr.  M'Calla  gives  us  the 
whole  it.  In  the  mean  time,  we  will  request  your  at- 
tention to  the  households  baptized,  or  ^  family  bap- 
tisms,' as  some  call  them,  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Of  these  there  are  but  four.  Of  three  of  these 
we  have  positive  proof  that  all  baptized  were  professed 
disciples,  capable  of  hearing,  believing  and  obeying  the 
word.  The  only  family  that  admits  of  the  least  hesita- 
tion with  respect  to  the  members  of  it,  is  that  of  Lydia : 
and  if  there  had  not  been  another  family  baptized  in 
the  narrative  than  this  one,  or  if  there  had  been  the 
same  want  of  particularity  in  describing,  incidentally  or 
explicitly,  the  baptism  of  the  others,  it  would  be  utter- 
I  ly  impossible  for  any  man  living  to  furnish  a  positive 
evidence  of  infant  baptism  from  Scripture  testimony. 
We  have,   indeed,    already  shewn,   that   the  apostles 


(     324     ) 

baptized  none  but  professed  disciples,  by  facts  and  ar- 
guments that  Mr.  M^Calla  dared  not  to  impugn ;  and 
therefore  might  be   excused  from  noticing  this  ten 
thousand  times  refuted  notion  of  infants  having  been 
baptized  in  these  four  families.     But  that  the  fullest 
satisfaction  may  be  afforded  to  all  interested,  we  will 
again  condescend   to  visit  the   families    alluded  to. 
With  respect  to  Lydia's  family,  of  the  circumstances 
of  which  there  is  the  least  said,  and  therefore  the  more 
room  for  conjecture,  as  we  see  in  all  the  references  to 
it  by  the  Paido-baptists,  we  will  just  mention,  that  six 
things  must  be  proved,  before  it  can  be  proved  from 
it,  that  we  have  positive  evidence  of  apostolic  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptism.     1.  That  Lydia  ever  had  a 
husband.    2.  That  she  had  a  husband  lately.    3.  That 
she  ever  had  children.     4.  That  she  had  brought  her 
children  with  her  from  Thyatira  to  Philippi,  a  jour- 
ney of  200  miles,  mostly  by  sea.     5.  That  her  chil- 
dren were  then  infants,  and  6.  That  they  were  actu- 
ally baptized.     All   this  nhist  be  done   before  Mr. 
M^Calla's  positive  can  be  adduced.     Now  let  me  ask, 
can  Mr,  M'Calla  prove  any  one  of  these  circum- 
stances ?     I  positively  answer,  JVb,  not  one.    Where, 
then,  is  his  positive  evidence  to  be  obtained  from  Ly- 
dia's  house  ?     Indeed  there  is  not  probable  evidence, 
much  less  positive  evidence,  of  infant  baptism  in  this 
family.''     ^^But  just  let  us  look  at  the  circumstances 
of  Lydia's  family,  and  consider  what  is  most  probable 
in  the  case.     1.  She  shews  herself  to  be  the  sole  pro- 
prietor of  her  house,  and  precludes  the  idea  of  having 
a  husband,  in  these  words.  Acts  xvi.  15.  '  Come  into 
my  house,  and  tarry  with  me.'     2.  That  she  was  an 
unmarried  woman  is  probable  from  her  manner  of  giv- 
ing the  invitation,  which  indeed  is  the  most  singular 
invitation  on  record,  '  If  ye  have  judged  rue  fuitltfvl 
to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house.'     It  is  equivalent  to 
saying,  if  you  have  formed  a  good  opinion  of  my  being 
under  subjection  to  Christ,  you  will  not  impeach  my 
modesty,  or  suppose  mc  actuated  by  any  other  motive 


(     325      ) 

than  the  love  of  my  Master,  in  inviting  you  to  sojourn 
with  a  woman.  3.  That  she  was  an  unmarried  wo- 
man at  this  time,  is  further  evident  from  her  manner 
of  life.  She  was  a  travelling  merchant,  and  far  from 
her  own  city.  4.  It  is  also  probable  that  the  brethren 
mentioned  in  4th  verse,  were  members  of  her  family, 
servants  or  relatives  in  her  employ. ^^  ^^Thus,  from 
a  fair  and  full  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  of 
Lydia's  house,  there  is  not  the  least  probability  that 
there  was  an  infant  in  it.  But  if  even  it  had  been  pro- 
bable that  infants  belonged  to  Lydia's  house,  we  are 
absolutely  certified  from  other  portions  of  the  divine 
testimony,  that  they  were  not  baptized.'^  ^^The  time 
has  fully  come  when  it  becomes  my  duty,  from  a  pro- 
mise already  given  you,  my  friends,  to  prove  that  this 
new  discovery  made  on  purpose  to  aid  the  falling 
cause  of  infant  baptism,  is  a  refuge  of  lies.  I  have  said 
that  it  is  a  refuge  of  lies.  Many  seek  shelter  under 
such  refuges  without  knowing  them  to  be  such.  Per- 
haps this  was  the  case  with  Mr.  Rallston  and  my  Op- 
ponent. Be  this  as  it  may,  we  are  sure  it  is  a  refuge 
of  lies,  and  that  the  alledged  difference  between  oiJws 
and  oikia  is  not  only  an  erroneous  criticism,  but  that 
statements  made  concerning  these  terms  are  absolutely 
false.  Whether  intentional  or  not,  lies  not  in  my  way 
to  judge  or  to  express.  We  are  only  concerned  in 
what  is  said,  on  the  present  occasion,  and  not  in  the 
motive  or  design  of  the  speaker  or  writer.  I  then  po- 
sitively assert  that  in  the  bible,  there  is  no  more  dif- 
ference betwixt  the  use  and  application  of  the  words 
oikos  and  oikia  than  there  is  between  the  words  bro- 
thers and  brethren,  I  suppose  you  all  know  that  the 
difference  betwixt  the  words  brothers  and  brethren  is 
only  in  the  orthography  or  spelling  of  the  words,  and 
that  there  is  no  difference  in  the  sense.  Now  for  the 
proof.  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  i.  16,  I  baptized  the  oikos  of 
Stephanas,  and  in  the  same  Epistle,  addressed  to  the 
same  church,  in  speaking  of  the  same  family,  Chap.  xvi. 
13,  he  calls  this  family  the  oikia  of  Stephanas.   '  Ye 


(     326     ) 

know,^  says  he,  '  the  household  (ten  oikian)  of  Stepha- 
nas that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have 
addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints/  Here 
the  same  family,  by  the  same  writer,  is  called,  in  the 
same  letter,  both  oikos  and  oikia.  Any  person  that 
knows  the  Greek  alphabet  can  see  that  this  is  as  I  have 
said.  Where  now  is  the  truth  of  Mr.  Rallston's  decla- 
ration, p.  19.  ^  Hence,'  says  he,  when  we  read  of 
Cornelius  and  his  house,  of  Lydia  and  her  house,  of  the 
Jailer  and  his  house,  and  of  Stephanas  and  his  house,  in 
all  of  which,  oikos  and  not  oikia  is  used.  He  says,  not 
oikia  is  used,  but  here  I  have  shewn  that  it  is !  This 
proves  the  assertion  false.  And  that  you  may  see  that  it 
is  erroneous,  we  have  only  to  observe  that  Mr.  Rallston 
and  Mr.  Rice  and  Mr.  M^Calla  say,  that  oikia  denotes 
servants,  as  the  servants  of  Cesar's  household,  (oikias)  as 
Mr.  Rallston  quotes  it;  and  then  so  to  translate  it  when- 
ever it  occurs.  Thus  said  Paul,  Chap.  i.  I  baptized  the 
infants,  (oikos)  of  Stephanas,  and  Chap.  xvi.  Ye  know 
the  servants,  (oikia)  of  Stephanas  that  they  were  the 
first  fruits,  &c.  and  thus  make  the  apostle  give  a  repre- 
sentation of  Stephanas  as  a  father,  in  one  place,  as  a 
slaveholder  or  master  in  another ;  having  servants  that 
were  not  servants,  but  freemen,  addicting  themselves  to 
the  service  of  the  saints,  when  they  were  their  master's 
property,  and  having  no  time  at  their  ow^n  disposal.  What 
contradictions  and  inconsistencies  appear  in  a  bold  ad- 
vocate of  this  human  tradition!  But  that  oikos  and  oikia 
are  applied  in  the  bible  to  the  self-same  family,  and  to 
the  self  same  house,  will  appear  from  a  few  references. 
I  would  only  premise  one  remark,  viz.  that  the  differ- 
ence betwixt  the  families  called  oikos  and  those  called 
oikia,  is  plead  upon  the  allegation  that  oikos  literally 
denotes  the  dwelling  place  of  the  master  or  father  of  the 
house,  and  that  oikia  denotes  the  house,  cabin,  or  hut, 
in  which  the  servants  or  slaves  lived.  It  is  said  that  in 
their  figurative  application  the  same  diiference  exists. 
As  oikos  signifies  the  master's  dwelling  house,  it  figura- 
tively denotes  his  children  :  and  as  oikia  denotes  the 


(     327     ) 

servant's  house,  it  figuratively  denotes  the  servants  that 
lived  in  it.  The  jailer's  house  is  called,  verse  31,  oikos  ; 
in  V.  32,  it  is  called  oikia  ;  and  in  v.  34,  it  is  again  call- 
ed oikos.  Once  here  it  appears  evidently  to  refer  to  the 
family,  ^  Thou  slialt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.'    '  They 
spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  that  were  in  his  house, 
(oikia).'     This  evidently  refers  to  the  house,  literally 
considered.     And  34,  '  He  led  them  into  his  house,'' 
(oikos)  the  place  of  abode.     But  whatever  meaning  we 
may  ^yi  to  the  word,  it  affects  not  the  point  for  which 
we  contend  ;  for  the  fact  still  remains,  and  it  is  undenia- 
able,  that  the  jailer's  house  is  called  both  an  oikos  and 
an  oikia.     Mr.  M^Calla,  or  rather  Mr.  R.  from  whom 
the  criticism  is  taken,  aware  that  oikia  is  applied  to  the 
jailer's  house,  as  well  as  oikos,  will  have  it,  contrary  to 
appearance  of  probability,  used  metaphorically,  and  says 
that  it  means  the  jailer's  servants,  to  whom  he  spake  the 
word  of  the  Lord.     This  is  an  evident  assertion  to  suit 
the  hypothesis.     But  suppose  we  should  admit  it  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  then  how  does  it  stand  ?  It  stands 
thus,  he  preached  to  the  servants,  and  baptized  only  the 
oikos,  the  infants !  !  I     The  oikia  was  not  baptized,  but 
the  oikos  was.    Paul  and  Silas,  then,  were  more  success- 
ful in  discipleing  the  oikos  than  the  oikia,     Mr.  R's  in- 
fants, they  were  more  easily  converted  than  the  ser- 
vants.    They  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  the  jail- 
er's servants,  but  not  to  his  wife  nor  children,  if  he  had 
any !     Partial  preachers  these.     Assuredly  they  were 
Paido-baptists  ! !"     "  We  shall,  for  the  sake  of  giving 
sufficient  data  to  explode  this  absurd  criticism,  here  re- 
gister more  circumstantially  and  methodically,  a  number 
of  plain  evidences  or  proofs  of  its  falsehood.     We  shall 
first  shew  that  oikos  and  oikia  are  used  by  the  inspired 
penmen  of  the  New  Testament  as  completely  synoni- 
mous.  The  Centurion's  house,  whose  faith  was  so  famed, 
and  whose  servant  the  Messiah  cured,  is,  by  Luke,  in 
the  VL  Chapter,  called,  verse  6th,  oikia^  and  in  verse 
10th  it  is  called  oikos      The  same  house  is  by  Matthew 
called  oikia,  Chap.  viii.  6.     Jairus^  the  ruler  of  the  sy- 


(     328     ) 

nagogue,  whose  daughter  the  Messiah  brought  to  life, 
had  a  house,  which  Luke  calls  oihos,  Chap.  viii.  41 ;  and 
and  in  the  same  chapter,  verse  51,  he  calls  the  same 
house  oikia.    Mark  calls  the  same  house  oikos,  Chap.  v. 
38,  and  Matthew  calls  it  oikia^  Chap.  v.  23.   In  the  pa- 
rable concerning  the  house  divided  against  itself,  which 
is  recorded  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  it  is  called 
oikia,  Matt.  xii.  25,  also  oikia,  Mark  iii.  25,  but  it  is 
called  oikos  epi  oikon,  Luke  xi.  17.     In  the  parable 
concerning  the  house  being  attacked  by  thieves,  record- 
ed by  Matthew  and  Luke,  Matthew  calls  it  oikia,  Chap, 
xxiv.  43,  and  Luke  calls  the  same  house  oikos,  Chap, 
xii.  39.     The  same  house  is  called  both  oikos  and  oikia 
in  the  same  verse,  Luke  x.  5.     Into  whatever  house, 
{oikia)  ye  enter,  say  peace  be  to  this  house,  (oikos.)  The 
Messiah  calls  his  Father's  house  both  oikos  and  oikia, 
John  ii.   16,   and  xiv.  2.     The  house  of  Martha  and 
Mary  is  called  oikos,  John  xi.  20,  and  in  the  same  chap- 
ter it  is  called  oikia,  verse  31.     These  few  instances, 
selected  from  the  four  Gospels  only,  will  show  how  much 
dependence  ought  to  be  placed  on  such  critics,  the  very 
foundation  of  whose  criticisms  is  laid  in  a  falsehood,  viz. 
that  oikos  and  oikia  literally  signify  a  house,  but  not  the 
same  kind  of  a  house.  We  have  produced  from  the  very 
portion  of  the  Bible  where  they  say  this  distinction  is 
observed  with  the  greatest  accuracy,  unequivocal  evi- 
dences that  both  words  are  used  to  denote  the  same  kind 
of  an  house.     Many  instances  more  can  be  produced. 
We  shall  expose  the  fallacy  of  this  new  discovery  a  little 
farther.     These  sagacious  Doctors  of  divinity  say,  that 
oikia  literally  signifies  the  servants'  house,  and  meta- 
phorically signifies  the  servants  themselves.     Thus  Dr. 
kallston,  ^  oikia  signifies  a  man's  household  or  servants.' 
Let  us  test  the  correctness  of  this  assertion.  Matt.  x.  12. 
Salute  the  house  when  ye  enter  it,  {oikia)  i.  e.  salute  the 
servants  only.     Matt.  x.   13.    If  the  house,  {oikia)  be 
worthy,  i.  e.  the  servants.     Matt.  xii.  25.  Every  house 
divided,  {oikia)  i.  c.  servants,  divided  come  to  desola- 
tion.    The  Centurion,  whose  son  Jesus  healed,  John  iv= 


(     329     ) 

50,  believed,  with  all  his  house,  {oihia  ok)  i.  e.  all  his 
servants  only  believed.      Matth.  xiii.  57,    A  prophet 
hath  no  honour  in  his  own  house,  ioikia)  i.  e.  among  his 
slaves  or  servants.    Joshua  said,  as  for  me  and  my  house, 
(oikia)  we  will  serve  the  Lord,  i.  e.  myself  and  my 
Servants.    Receive  him  not  into  your  house,  {oikia)  i.  e. 
into  your  kitchen  among  your  servants.     In  every  great 
house,  {oikia)  there  are  vessels  of  gold  and  silver,  &c.  i.  e. 
in  every  great  hut  or  cabin.     In  my  Father's  house, 
{oikia)  are  many  mansions.     I  forbear  to  expose  this  cri- 
ticism farther.     Hundreds  of  instances  similar  to  those 
adduced  can  be  given.     But  we  must  not  pass  by  the 
most  important  point,  viz.  that  oikos  signifies  sometimes 
children,   and  even  infants,  apart  from  their  parents. 
And  what  of  this,  ye  sagacious  critics !  The  word  family 
in  English,  very  often  signifies  the  same  thing!  But  does 
that  prove  any  thing  favourable  to  your  hypothesis  !    So 
long  as  the  word  family,  which  you  say  is  the  meaning 
of  oikos,    frequently   denotes  all  that  live  under  one 
father,  mother,  master,  or  mistress,  whether  infants  or 
adults,  so  long  it  remains  to  be  determined,  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  who  are  the  constituents  or  mem- 
bers of  the  family  ;  and  thus,  after  all  your  boasted  disco- 
very, you  have  to  confess  yourselves  to  be  just  where 
you  were  ;  unable  to  prove  that  there  ever  was  an  infant 
in  any  house,  oikia,  or  family  that  was  baptized.     But 
you  intended  to  carry  some  point  by  the  discovery,  and 
we  know  of  nothing  you  could  propose,  except  to  lead 
captive  the  ignorant  and  unwary  admirers  of  the  pa- 
tented PRIESTHOOD.    For,  Gentlemen,  you  must  know 
that  oikos  and  oikia  are  used  interchangeably  in  all 
books,  and  by  all  Greek  writers,  if  you  know  any  thing 
of  Greek;  and  you  must  know,  if  you  have  read  the 
Septuagint  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  oikos  hundreds 
of  times  is  applied  to  denote  every  kind  of  house  or  fa- 
mily. The  very  first  time  it  occurs  is  Gen,  vii.  1,  where 
Noah  is  commanded  to  take  all  his  house  into  the  ark, 
oikos.     Now  we  all  know  that  Noah's  oikos  was  com- 
posed of  three  other  oikoi,  and  that  each  of  these  oikosi 
T  t 


(     330     ) 

was  composed  of  adults :  four  oikoi  composed  [pas  o 
oiJcos)  all  the  house  of  Noah.  The  youngest  child  or  in- 
fant in  this  house  [oilcos]  was  about  98  years  old.  This 
same  oikos  occurs  14  times  in  the  first  chapter  of  Num- 
bers, and  includes  under  12  occurrences  603^550  adults 
from  20  years  and  upwards.  And  so  extremely  far  from 
truth  and  correctness  is  this  criticism,  that  we  can  fur- 
nish instances  where  oikos  signifies  a  man's  servants. 
Thus  Gen.  xvii.  27,  all  the  men  of  Abraham's  house, 
oikosy  of  which  there  were  318  servants  born  in  his  oikos, 
were  circumcised  when  Abraham's  eldest  son  was  13 
years  old.  Observe,  not  oikia,  household,  but  oikos, 
house  !  But  observe,  God  said  of  Abraham,  he  will  or- 
der his  children,  {hoi  huioi)  and  his  household,  oikos, 
yes,  oikos,  his  servants,  not  oikia,  Joseph  was  placed 
over  the  house  of  Pharaoh,  {oikos,)  i.  e.  over  all  his  ser- 
vants, noble  and  ignoble.  Gen.  xli.  40.  Solomon  gave 
Hiram  20,000  measures  of  wheat,  and  20  measures  of 
pure  oil  every  year  for  the  use,  for  the  annual  consump- 
tion of  his  oikos.  Assuredly  Hiram  must  have  had  many 
infants  to  consume  all  this ! !  Again,  the  whole  house  of 
Jacob  is  sometimes  called  oikos,  and  pan  oikia,  Gen.  1. 
22.  xlvi.  31,  &c.  &c.  To  round  off  this  bold  period  of 
learned  criticism,  Mr.  Rallston  adds,  *  It  is  true,  indeed, 
that  the  English  Translators  have  sometimes  rendered 
both  words  house,  and  sometimes  household,  but  the  dis- 
tinction is  generally  observed  with  accuracy,'  (mark 
this,)  and,  adds  he,  ^certainly  it  would  have  been  better 
to  have  uniformly  rendered  oikos  house,  and  oikia 
household,  as  they  have  done,  (once)  Phil.  iv.  22.'  Now, 
courteous  reader,  [hearer,]  don't  be  startled  when  I  tell 
you  that  it  is  a  fact  that  our  Translators,  in  the  New 
Testament,  have  only  once  translated  oikia,  household, 
and  oikos  three  times,  and  that  of  forty  three  times 
household  in  the  English  Old  Testament  forty  one  times 
it  is  oikos,  in  the  Septuagint,  and  only  twice  oikia! ! 
When  this  is  denied,  we  shall  give  chapter  and  verse. 
So  speaks  the  Paido- baptist,  and  so  speaks  fact.  Now 
judge  ye.     Thus  I  have  shewn  that  the  whole  of  this 


(     331     ) 

criticism  is  a  mere  fabrication  of  an  overweening  imagi- 
nation, say  the  best  of  it.  Were  it  necessary  I  could  fill, 
from  Classical  authority,  a  respectable  pamphlet  of  refu- 
tations of  this  miserable  refuge*  But  as  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  were  only  referred  to  on  this  point,  I  confine 
myself  exclusively  to  them/^  ^^and  design  it  to  stand 
here  as  a  refutation  of  Taylor's,  Rice's,  Rallston's,  and 
M^Calla's  new  theory  of  positive  proof.  I  should  except 
Mr.  Rallston,  for  he  only  calls  the  argument  derived 
from  the  family  baptism,  '  presumptive  evidence'  of 
apostolic  practice.  Mr.  M^Calla  presumes  a  little  far- 
ther, and  calls  it  positive  proof.  We  will  call  it  positive 
proof  of  positive  presumption. "(w) 

Thus  has  my  Baptist  Opponent  entertained  you.  His 
ingenuity,  wit,  and  severity,  I  leave  you  to  admire.  The 
charge  of  falsehood,  which  he  has  so  liberally  brought 
against  Mr.  Rallston,  needs  no  other  notice  than  to  re- 
mind you,  that  it  is  merely  grounded  upon  his  holding  a 
different  opinion  from  my  Opponent.  Mr.  Rallston 
thinks,  that  even  when  oihos  and  oikia  are  applied  to 
the  same  tenement  or  the  same  domestic  community, 
they  do  not  mean  the  same  part  of  that  tenement  or  the 
same  persons  of  that  community.  My  Opponent  boister- 
ously asserts  that  they  do  mean  the  same,  and  that  ^^any 
person  that  knows  the  Greek  alphabet  can  see  that"  his 
opinion  is  right,  and  that  Mr.  Rallston  or  any  other  person 
who  holds  a  different  opinion  is  guilty  of  falsehood  and 
lying,  which  charges  are  so  agreeable  to  him  in  this  sad 
dearth  of  argument,  that  he  repeats  them  as  often  as  three 
times  in  one  breath. 

Yet  while  my  Opponent  would  thus  stigmatize  Mr.  R. 
for  a  mere  difference  of  opinion,  ought  he  not  to  be  more 
careful  of  his  own  statements  as  to  matters  of  fact  ?  In 
relation  to  this  criticism  on  oiTcos  and  oikia^  he  has  unre- 
servedly asserted  that  ^'Mr.  R.''  is  the  man  ^^from  whom 

(m)  This  argument,  chiefly  elaborated  since  the  real  debate,  is  copied 
from  Mr.  Campbell's  Spurious  Report,  where  it  will  be  found  in  the  text 
and  a  large  note  of  pp.  262 — 265.  278—283. 


(     332     ) 

the  criticism  is  taken, '^(z;)  Now  tliis  whole  audience^ 
whether  acquainted  with  the  Greek  alphabet  or  not, 
knows  that  I  did  not  take  it  from  Mr.  R.  They  know 
also  that  the  Pamphleteer  does  not  even  publish  it  as  the 
production  of  Dr.  Rice  of  Virginia,  but  as  taken  from 
Taylor,  the  Editor  of  Calmet's"  Dictionary.  With  this 
fact  my  Opponent  shews  himself  to  be  acquainted  :  for 
in  a  former  speech  he  called  it  "  the  criticism  of  Rice 
and  Taylor,  on  the  words  oikos  and  oikia^^iiv)  Know- 
ing this,  what  invectives  could  have  conveyed  his  indig- 
nation against  Mr.  R.  if  Mr.  R.  himself  had  so  far  for- 
gotten the  truth,  as  to  claim  originality  in  this  argument, 
or  to  assert  that  I  had  taken  it  from  him  ?  Yet  an  asser- 
tion, which,  in  the  judgment  of  our  Greek  scholar,  would 
have  constituted  Mr.  R.  guilty  of  falsehood  and  lying, 
my  Opponent,  to  answer  a  purpose(a7)  can  make,  with- 
out a  blush. 

But  whosoever  originated  this  argument,  my  Oppo- 
nent is  determined  that  no  one  shall  make  it  good,  if  he 
can  prevent  it,  by  prejudgments  and  arbitrary  restric- 
tions. He  says,  ''  Mr.  M'Calla  affirms,  that  there  were 
*^  infants  baptized  in  Lydia's  house,  let  him  prove  it 
^^  then.  But  it  is  impossible.  Ergo,  Mr.  M^Calla  affirms 
''  that  which  he  cannot  prove. '^y)  To  make  this  under- 
taking impossible,  as  he  thinks,  he  insists  repeatedly  and 
emphatically,  that  I  must  "  prove  positively,  that 
there  were  infants  in  this  family. ''  By  this  word  posi- 
tively, he  means,  according  to  the  context,  that  I  must 
find  out  Lydia's  husband,  and  the  number,  age,  educa- 
tion, and  residence  of  her  children.  Upon  such  terms 
as  these,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  how  my  Opponent 


M  Spurious  Deft.  p.  280.     This  and  the  context  are  copied  above. 

(ty)  Spurious  Deb.  p.  262,  copied  above. 

\x)  Mr.  Campbell's  Spurious  Debate  divulges  the  reason  of  this  wild 
sUitement.  There  it  appears  that  he  was  not  possessed  of  either  Taylor's 
orUice*s,  or  my  argument,  and,  therefore,  copied  Mr.  Rallston's  forme. 
My  Collateral  l^apers,  published  some  time  ago,  shew,  that  this  is  only 
one  of  many  •*  retugcs  of  lies"  to  which  he  was  driven  by  the  scantiness 
of  his  materials  and  the  badness  cf  his  cause. 

(y)  Spurious  Debate,  p.  266. 


(     333     ) 

would  set  about  proving  positively  from  the  scriptures, 
that  Tabitha,  or  any  other  female^  was  ever  admitted  to 
the  Lord's  table.  Let  him  give  us  her  name,  in  con- 
nexion with  a  direct  statement  of  the  fact,  accompanied 
with  the  name  of  the  administrator,  and  the  time,  place, 
and  circumstances  of  the  communion.  After  his  declin- 
ing this  undertaking,  as  he  certainly  will,  would  you 
not  think  me  a  wonderful  logician,  to  close  the  question 
of  female  communion,  as  he  has  done  that  of  household 
baptism  ?  Let  us  see  how  the  argument  would  waTk. 

"  My  Opponent  affirms  that  females  communed  with 
the  Apostles. 

Let  him  prove  it  then. 

But  it  is  impossible. 

Ergo,  my  Opponent  affirms  that  which  he  cannot 
prove !!'' 

If  those  whom  my  Opponent  politely  calls  "  The 
Patented  Priesthood,^^  were  to  compose  such  a  syllo- 
gism, he  would  hardly  give  them  credit  for  patented 
powers  of  reasoning.  In  opposition  to  this  he  would  tell 
us,  as  he  has  done,  that  the  communion  was  administered 
to  disciples:  disciples  include  ye/?2«/e  believers:  ergo, 
the  communion  was  administered  to  female  believers.  So 
we  say.  Baptism  was  administered  to  households:  house- 
holds include  infants:  therefore,  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered to  infants.  Now  the  question  in  both  these  cases 
is  this  ;  Do  disciples  include  females?  Do  households  in- 
clude infants?  To  shew  that  households  do  not  embrace 
infants,  my  Opponent  quotes  Noah's  household  consist- 
ing 0^  eight  adults  without  one  infant.  Would  he  think 
it  conclusive  in  the  other  question,  to  remind  him,  that 
the  first  company  of  ^communicants  in  the  Christian 
church,  consisted  of  eleven  or  twelve  disciples  ivithout 
one  FEMALE?  Does  this  shew  that  disciples  do  not  in- 
clude females?  My  Opponent  says.  No.  Then  neither 
does  the  case  of  Noah,  or  any  other  case,  shew  that  house- 
holds do  not  embrace  infants.  To  prove  his  point,  my 
Opponent  produces  one  passage  of  scripture,  calling 
Tabitha  a  disciple.     To  prove  mine,  it  will  be  conve- 


(     334     ) 

nient  to  shew  that  infants  belong  to  households,  by  as 
many  authorities  as  your  patience  can  endure :  and  after 
so  much  has  been  said  on  oikos  and  oikia  by  my  Oppo- 
nent, it  is  to  be  feared  that  indulgence  will  be  almost  as 
difficult  for  you,  as  it  is  necessary  for  me. 

There  are  certain  principles  which  are  acknowledg- 
ed, either  expressly  or  practically,  by  all  men  of  real 
learning,    who    undertake    the   explanation   of    words, 
whether  in  the  scriptures  or  elsewhere.     These  princi- 
ples my  Opponent  takes  for  granted,  and  to  them  he 
virtually  appeals  for  a  verdict  in  his  favour.     As  they 
are  really  in  my  favour,  an  express  recognition  of  them 
would  be  an  advantage ;  and  the  time  occupied  in  stating 
them  would  be  compensated  by  their  shewing  the  bear- 
ing of  the  evidence  adduced.     They  shall  be  transcribed 
from  Classical  and  Theological  scholars,  and  among  the 
latter,  from  Baptist  as  well  as  Pedobaptist  authority. 
The  celebrated  Duke  de  Montausier,  who  was  the  first 
promoter  of  what  we  call  the  Dauphin  edition  of  the 
Classics,  used  often   to   say   that  in    "  The  difficulties 
which  occur  to  us  in  reading  the  works  of  the  An- 
cients^^^  arising  "from  our  not  knowing  in  what  sense 
they  used  such  a  word  formerly ^^^  "  the  commentator 
should  endeavour  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  question,  by  consulting  how  it  is  used  by  the  same 
author,  in  other  places,  where  the  meaning  of  it  may  be 
more  evident ;  or  by  any  other  of  the  same  country,  and 
fas  near  as  may  be  J  of  the  same  times. ^\z)     On  the 
same  subject,  the  celebrated  Thomas  Harlwell  Home, 
in  his  Introduction  to  the  Bible,  directs  us  to  "  ascertain 
the  notion  affixed  to  a  word  by  the  persons  in  general^ 
by  whom  the  language  either  is  now  or  formerly  was 
spoken,  and  especially  in  the  particular  connexion  in 
which  such  notion  is  affixed,^^     "  The  meaning  of  a 
ivord  used  by  any  writer,  is  the  meaning  affixed  to  it  by 
those  for  whom  he  immediately  wrote.     For  there  is  a 

(z)  Quoted  in  the  Preface  of  Parkhurst's  Hebrew  Lexicon,  from 
Spcnce's  Polymetis,  p.  286. 


(     335     ) 

Tcind  of  natural  compact  between  those  who  write  and 
those  who  speak  a  language  ;  by  ivhich  they  are  mutu- 
ally bound  to  use  words  in  a  certain  sense :  he,  there- 
fore, who  uses  such  words  in  a  different  signification,  in 
a  inanner  violates  that  compact,  and  is  in  danger  of 
leading  men  into  error P  *^  The  received  signification 
of  a  word  is  to  be  retained,  unless  weighty  and  necessary 
reasons  require  that  it  should  be  abandoned  or  neglect- 
ed,^\a)  To  the  same  purport,  the  late  Dr.  Ryland,  an 
eminent  Baptist  clergyman  of  England,  says,  ''Every 
word  should  be  taken  in  its  primary,  obvious,  and  ordi- 
nary meaning,  unless,  there  be  something  in  the  con- 
nexion, or  in  the  nature  of  things,  which  requires  it  to 
be  taken  otherwise?^  "  Whenever,  by  the  connexion  of 
a  term,  or  by  the  nature  of  things,  we  are  obliged  to  de- 
part from  the  primary,  obvious,  and  ordinary  meanitig 
of  a  word,  we  should  depart  as  little  as  possible  from 
that  meaning;  and  even  ivith  reluctance. ^\b)  To  these 
rules  I  have  no  objection,  though  an  experienced  po- 
lemic will  easily  perceive  that  in  the  construction  of 
them,  Dr.  Ryland  had  his  eye  on  the  Baptist  contro- 
versy. The  same  prejudice  is  so  obvious  in  another 
rule,  as  to  make  it  perfectly  nugatory.  It  is  as  follows, 
viz.  '"'V^h^i^y^v  \s  expressed  m  scripture,  is  conclusive 
argument:  whatever  is  not  expressed,  is  not  conclusivd^^ 
If  Dr.  Ryland,  or  my  Opponent,  or  any  other  person  can 
shew  that  female  communion  is  expressed  in  scripture, 
then  I  will  shew  that  infant  baptism  is  expressed  there. 
But  if  they  consider  the  communion  of  disciples  an 
expression  of  female  communion,  then  the  baptism  of 
households  IS  an  expression  of  infant  baptism. 

The  application  of  the  canons  now  read,  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  is  plainly  this.  There  is  a  dispute  about  the 
meaning  of  the  word  household,  as  it  is  used  a  few  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  connexion  with  baptism. 
The  question  is,  Does  this  word  household  include  in- 

(a)  Home's  Introd.  vol.  2.  Part.  2.  Chap.  2. 

{b)  Taylor's  second  publication  of  Facts  and  Evidences  on  the  subject 

of  Baptism,  p.  23. 


(     336     ) 

fants,  as  the  word  disciples  mQ\ni\e^  feinales?  We  affirm; 
they  deny.  Both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  agree  that 
it  must  embrace  infants^  if  the  following  statements  can 
be  made  good,  viz.  1.  The  word  household  and  its 
cognates,  embrace  infants,  in  the  "  primary,  obv  ious,  and 
ordinary  meaning''  of  the  w^ords.  2.  In  the  disputed 
passages,  there  is  !  nothing  connected  with  the  word 
household,  which  requires  it  to  be  taken  otherwise  than 
in  its  ^^ primary,  obvious,  and  ordinary  meaning."  3. 
This  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  household,  among 
those  for  whom  the  authors  of  the  disputed  passages 
"  immediately  wrote.''  4.  This  was  the  meaning  of  the 
word  household  and  its  conjugates,  in  other  writings  of 
the  same  authors,  and  of  cotemporary  authors,  and 
of  former  authors.  Sacred  and  Profane,  with  whose 
writings  they  were  more  or  less  familiar.  These  posi- 
tions, therefore,  I  shall,  with  divine  assistance,  endeav- 
our to  make  good,  in  the  examination  of  the  following 
Greek  words  and  phrases.     Oixta,  jtavoixta^  rta^otxia,  ?taca 

Tta^ocxia:  Otxo^,  o^oj  otzoj,  rtag*  oixo^j  rtavoixsdvaj  TiatoLXLOS,  riavoixi^ 
oixoSofiia,  ovxodo/x'rj,  Ttatsa  otxoSo/x-jjj   otxoSojafca.        1  fiese  WC    Snail 

endeavour  to  consider,  as  they  are  used  in  relation  to  the 
material  or  spiritual  house,  the  ecclesiastical  or  celes- 
tial, the  national  or  sectional,  the  7^oyal  or  pontifical, 
the  patriarchal  ov  domestic  house:  all  of  which,  if  we 
mistake  not,  will  confirm  and  illustrate  the  doctrine,  that 
a  household  includes  infants,  and  that  the  household  bap- 
tism of  the  New  Testament  is  infant  baptism. 

You  now  see  the  scope  of  my  argument,  and  you  see 
what  ought  to  be  the  scope  of  my  Opponent's  argument. 
It  is  incumbent  upon  me  to  shew  that  oikos,  house^  or 
household,  and  its  kindred  words,  include  infants.  His 
object  is  properly  to  shew  that  they  do  not  include  in- 
fants. Yet  is  this  the  aim  of  the  argument  which  he  has 
actually  given  us?  The  greater  part  of  his  time  and 
strength  have  been  spent  in  trying  to  shew  the  identity 
of  oikos  and  oikia,  A  Baptist  preacher  of  England,  Mr. 
Anderson,  the  learned  antagonist  of  the  Editor  of  Cal- 
met's  Dictionary,  has  wasted  his  strength  in  the  same 


\ 


{     337     ) 

way.  If  this  course  is  really  calculated  to  defeat  them 
in  the  main  question,  whether  a  household  includes  in- 
fants, then  their  argument  lays  no  obstruction  in  my  way, 
but  is  an  actual  assistance  to  me.  Let  us  examine  this 
matter  for  a  moment.  Among  those  passages  which 
speak  of  a  house  divided  against  itself,  Anderson  shews 
that  one  Evangelist  uses  the  word  oikos,  and  two  others 
use  the  word  oikia.  My  Opponent  has  shown  the  same 
thing  in  your  presence.  If  they  have  gained  their  point, 
they  have  established  the  identity  of  these  words  :  but 
does  this  prove  that  neither  of  them  includes  infants?  A 
more  minute  investigation  will  shew  from  the  texts 
themselves,  and  from  the  comments  and  criticisms  of 
my  Opponent  and  other  Baptists,  that  infants  are  in- 
cluded in  both.  One  of  these  passages  says,  ^'  If  a  house^ 
oiKiA,  be  divided  against  itself,  that  house^  oikia,  can- 
not stand. '-'(c)  Instead  of  translating  the  word  oikia  by 
house,  my  Opponent's  New  Testament,  in  both  these 
places,  renders  it  family ;  and  Dr.  Gill  says  that  it 
means  *^  any /amf/y,  small  or  great."  Now  we  know 
that  the  majority  ot  families ^  both  small  and  great,  have 
infants,  and  that  these  infants  are  liable  to  be  the  great- 
est sufferers  in  domestic  broils.  Another  of  these  texts 
says,  ''  Every  kingdom  divided  against  itself,  is  brought 
to  desolation ;  and,  oikos  epi  oikon,  a  house  divided 
against  a  house  falleth.''(c?)  But  my  Opponent's  New 
Testament  gives  this  quite  another  turn,  as  follows,  viz. 
"By  intestine  broils  any  kingdom  may  be  desolated,  one 
family,  oikos,  falling  after  another,  oikon."  Accord- 
ing to  this  translation,  the  name  of  oikos  is  expressly 
given  to  ^w^v^  family  in  the  kingdom  :  for  the  kingdom 
is  desolated  in  detail,  family  falling  after  family.  Is  it 
possible  to  find  a  kingdom  whose  families  have  no  in- 
fants ?  This  itself  would  soon  bring  them  to  desolation, 
if  there  were  no  divisions  among  them.  But  perhaps  my 
Opponent  means  to  deny  the  existence  of  infants  in  any 
of  these  households  throughout  the  kingdom,  however 

(c)  Mark  iii.  35.  {d)  Luke  xi.  17. 

V  u 


(     338     ) 

numerous  and  fruitful  their  Lydia's  may  be,  until,  for 
the  honor  of  the  sex,  we  can  obtain  some  account  of  their 
husbands,  as  he  requires  in  the  case  of  our  converted 
Lydia.  I  hope  you  now  see  that  instead  of  laying  ob- 
structions in  our  way,  by  his  laborious  criticisms  on 
oikos,  and  olkiaf  he  has  aided  in  proving,  that  a  house- 
holdy  whether  called  by  the  one  Greek  name  or  the 
other,  ordinarily  includes  infants. 

If  I  understand  those  who  make  a  distinction  between 
oikos  and  oikia,  they  consider  the  first  as  comprehend- 
ing the  children  of  the  householder,  and  the  second  as 
including  the  rest  of  the  family,  particularly  the  servants. 
These  appear  to  consider  the  servants  as  excluded  from 
household  baptism,  because  the  New  Testament  says  no- 
thing of  baptizing  any  person^s  oikia,  but  the  oikos  only. 
As  this  position  was  taken  by  some  Pedobaptists,  Mr. 
Anderson  of  England  thought  it,  of  course,  his  duty  to 
say  the  very  contrary.  He  accordingly  makes  a  great 
display  of  learning  to  prove  ^^that  oikia  signifies  fa?nili/, 
exclusive  of  attendants ;''  and  ^^that  oikos  has  the  sense 
Q>i family^  including  domestics.'^ (c/)  You  may  perhaps, 
ask  how  this  will  comport  with  my  Opponent's  very 
positive  assertion  that  ''  there  is  no  more  difference 
betwixt  the  use  and  application  of  the  words  oikos  and 
oikia^  than  there  is  between  the  words  brothers  and 
hrethren:'^^  yet,  inconsistent  as  it  may  seem,  Mr.  Ander- 
son also  labours  to  prove  that  they  are  synonimous ;  and 
it  does  not  lie  in  my  way  to  dispute  the  matter  with 
them.  Household  circumcision  was  administered  to  the 
infants  of  servants,  as  well  as  those  of  the  master;  be- 
cause they  were  all  to  be  trained  up  in  the  way  they 
should  go:  and,  as  for  the  difficulty  suggested  by  the 
circumcision  of  so  many  adults  in  Abraham's  family,  this 
is  removed  by  inspired  testimony ;  that  they  were  al- 
ready "  trained  up  by  him  in  religious  exercises,'^  as 
Dr.  Gill  expressly  admits. (e)     On  this  subject  I  agree 

{d)  Taylor's  pamphlet,  entitled,  **  The  Baptists  Self-convicted,  by  the 
Rev.  William  Andersen,"  p.  30, 
{e)  Gen.  xiv.  14, 


(     339     ) 

with  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the  Synod  of  New 
York  and  Philadelphia^  A.  D.,  1786,  and  by  our  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  in  the  year  1816.  The  Act  of  the  former 
reads  thus :  "  The  following  case  of  conscience  from 
^'  Donnegal  Presbytery  was  overtured,  viz.  Whether 
"  Christian  masters,  or  mistresses,  ought  in  duty  to  have 
"  such  children  baptized,  as  are  under  their  care, 
'^  though  born  of  parents  not  in  the  communion  of  any 
"  Christian  church  ?  Upon  this  overture  Synod  are  of 
"  opinion,  that  Christian  masters  and  mistresses  whose 
'^  religious  professions  and  conduct  arc  such,  as  to  give 
"  them  a  right  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  for  their  own 
^'  children,  may,  and  ought  to,  dedicate  the  children 
''  of  their  HOUSEHOLD  to  God,  in  that  ordinance, 
"  when  they  have  no  scruple  of  conscience  to  the  con- 
''  trary."  The  subsequent  Act  of  our  General  Assem- 
bly reads  thus :  "  The  Committee  to  whom  was  referred 
''  the  following  question,  viz.  Ought  baptism,  on  the 
^^  profession  and  promise  of  the  master,  to  be  adminis- 
'^  tered  to  the  children  of  slaves?  reported,  and  their 
"  report  being  amended,  was  adopted,  and  is  as  follows, 
"  viz.  1.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  masters  who  are  mem- 
^'  hers  of  the  church,  to  present  the  children  of  parents 
"  in  servitude  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  provided 
''  they  are  in  a  situation  to  train  them  up  in  the  nurture 
''  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  thus  securing  to  them  the 
''  rich  advantages  which  the  gospel  provides.  2.  That 
"  it  is  the  duty  of  Christ's  ministers  to  inculcate  this  doc- 
"  trine,  and  to  baptize  all  children  of  this  description, 
^'  when  presented  to  them  by  their  masters."!/)  Our 
church,  then,  has  already  agreed  with  my  Opponent 
and  Mr.  Anderson  in  believing  that  oikos,  house  or 
household^  includes  servants.  That  it  certainly  includes 
infants,  we  now  proceed  to  prove,  from  the  proposed 
examination  of  itself  and  the  words  related  to  it,  in  the 
following  sections  and  particulars. 


(/)  Assembly's  Digest,  pp.  96,  97. 


(     540     ) 

I. 

OIKIA. 

This  word  has,  in  one  instance  at  least,  been  the  oc- 
casion of  much  stumbling  to  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists. 
This  one  instance  is  1  Cor.  xvi.  15,  16.  "  I  beseech 
''  you,  brethren,  (Ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas, 
''  that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have 
^'  addicted  themselves  to  the  minutry  of  the  saints,) 
"  that  ye  submit  yourselves  unto  such^  and  to  every  one 
"  that  helpeth  with  us,  and  laboureth."  On  this  pas- 
sage an  able  writer  of  our  own  country,  Dr.  Rice,  in  his 
Pamphleteer,(o)  speaks  as  follows,  viz.  "  I  confess, 
"  however,  that  this  passage,  as  it  stands  in  the  Original, 
"  presents  difiiculties  in  its  grammatical  structure, 
'^  which  I  do  not  know  well  what  to  do  with.  I  speak 
^'  here  not  as  a  theologian  or  polemic,  but  simply  as  a 
"  grammarian.  And  adopt  what  system  of  doctrine  I 
^'  may,  the  difficulty  presses  on  me  :  nor  do  I  stand  alone 
"  in  this  case.  The  harshness  and  difficulty  of  the  Ori- 
'^  ginal  has  embarrassed  every  commentator  that  I  have 
"  seen.  The  best  solution  of  the  sentence  that  I  have 
''  met  with,  is  to  be  found  in  the  pamphlet  already 
^^  quoted,  under  the  title  of  Fach  and  Evidences  on  the 
''  subject  of  Baptism. ^^  Dr.  Rice  then  gives  a  long  ex- 
tract from  one  of  the  able  pamphlets  of  Taylor,  the  English 
Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary ;  a  part  of  which  reads 

as  follows,  viz.     ^*  The  passage respecting  the 

^'  household  of  Stephanas  is  a  tissue  of  difficulties.  The 
^'  first  remark  on  it  is,  that,  as  it  stands,  it  is  neither 
^'  Greek,  grammar,  nor  common  sense.  It  cannot  be  re- 
^'  gularly  construed.  All  commentators  have  felt  this, 
^'  and  have  attempted  to  force  it  into  sense  by  supple- 
'^  mentary  words. '^  At  last  this  eminent  scholar  con- 
cludes that  we  should  drop  from  the  text  all  that  part 
of  the  15th  verse,  which  our  Translators  have  enclosed 

(o)  p.  58. 


i 


\ 


(     341     ) 

in  parenthesis,  and  that  we  should  consider  it  as  only 
intended  hy  the  Apostle  as  a  marginal  note ;  but  one 
which  was  unskilfully  introduced  into  the  text  too  early 
to  leave  any  trace  in  our  ancient  manuscripts  or  versions. 
This  conjectural  emendation,  he  thinks  absolutely  ne- 
cessary, to  preserve  the  passage  from  the  absurdity,  of 
commanding  the  whole  Corinthian  church,  and  Stepha- 
nas among  them,  to  submit  to  his  servants^  or,  at  best, 
his  children^  intended  by  household,  as  some  think. 

I  confess  myself  utterly  averse  to  taking  such  liberties 
with  the  Original  text,  merely  because  it  appears  harsh, 
ungrammatical,  and  hard  to  be  understood.  Would  not 
this  plan,  generally  and  uniformly  pursued,  make  a  new 
bible?  or,  rather,  would  it  not  make  bibles  as  numerous 
and  various  as  the  tastes  and  understandings  of  critics 
and  commentators  ?  This  would  certainly  make  sad  work 
of  our  only  infallible  standard,  not  excepting  that  por- 
tion of  it  which  was  written  by  Paul,  the  penman  of  the 
text ;  in  whose  epistles,  as  Peter  tells  us,  "  are  some 
things  hard  to  be  understood.'' 

I  am  inclined,  however,  to  doubt,  whether  Peter  would 
attribute  this  character  to  our  text.  The  difficulty,  with 
us,  monstrous  as  it  is  said  to  be,  appears  to  arise  only  from 
a  slight  inadvertency  in  interpreting  the  reference  of  a 
single  word.  The  word  such  in  the  16th  verse,  may  be 
understood  to  refer  to  one  of  two  things  in  the  15th  verse; 
that  is,  either  house  or  saints.  If  to  the  former,  then 
i!  the  passage  is  difficult :  but  if  to  the  latter,  it  is  easy 

and  consistent.  This  will  appear,  I  think,  when  the 
subject  has  received  that  patient  investigation,  which 
our  highly  respectable  objectors  have  given  to  other  pas- 
sages of  scripture. 

If  the  word  such  refer  to  the  house  of  Stephanas^ 
then  the  Apostle  seems  to  require,  that  as  the  household 
or  children  of  Stephanas  had  ministered  to  the  saints, 
therefore,  the  church  of  Corinth,  and  even  Stephanas 
himself,  must  submit  to  these  children.  This  would 
teach,  that  where  a  house  of  children  exercises  a  be- 
nevolent ministry  J  or  deacon  ry,  to  Christians,  they, 


(     342     ) 

thereby,  acquire  a  right  to  govern  their  parents,  con- 
trary to  the  Apostle's  instructions  to  Timothy,  that 
Deacons  should  have  a  character  for  "  ruling  their 
children  and  their  own  houses  well  ;''(o)  instead  of  let- 
ting their  houses  rule  them.  Instead  of  this  ministration 
to  the  saints  giving  a  right  to  rule,  the  same  Apostle,  in 
the  next  epistle,  declares,  that  it  is  itself  an  evidence 
of  submission.  "  Whiles  by  the  experiment  of  this 
DEACoJfuY,  ministration,  they  glorified  God  for  your 
professed  hypotage,  submission,  to  the  gospel  of 
Christ.''  It  seems,  therefore,  that  such  cannot  refer  to 
tho;  house  of  Stephanas,  as  Christians  are  not  required  to 
submit  to  children. 

If,  however,  we  can  lawfully  construe  the  word  such, 
as  referring  to  the  saints,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  the 
matter ;  because  the  scriptures  as  uniformly  require  us 
to  submit  to  saints,  as  to  govern  children.  Peter  says, 
^'  Likewise,  ye  younger,  hypotagete,  submit  your- 
^'  selves  unto  the  elder:  yea,  all  of  you,  hypotas- 
"  soMENOi,  submit  yourselves  one  to  another P[p)  In 
^'  accordance  with  this,  Paul,  the  penman  of  our  text, 
says  to  the  Ephesian  saints,  "  Hypotassomenoi,  sub- 
^'  mitting,  yourselves  one  to  another,  in  the  fear  of 
^^  God.^l^')  Let  us  now  paraphrase  the  passage  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  reading  the  translation  given  by 
Macnight,  and  approved  by  my  Opponent,  and,  (strange 
to  tell,)  copied  into  his  New  Testament.  It  is  as  follows, 
viz.  "  Ye  know  \ht  family  of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the 
first  fruit  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  deaconry,  ministry,  to  the  saints.  I  en- 
treat you,  therefore,  brethren,  that  ye  hypotassesthe, 
submit  yourselves  to  such,  [that  is  to  the  saints,]  and 
to  every  joint  worker  and  labourer,  [in  the  gospel, 
especially.]" 

This  interpretation  has  the  advantages  of  containing 
no  monstrous  sentiment,  but  a  meaning  which  is  per- 
fectly scriptural ;  it  preserves  the  text  from  any  need  of 

(o)  1  Tim.  iii.  12.  (/z)  1  Pet.  v,  5.  {q)  Epb.  v.  21. 


(     343     ) 

jugiilation;  and  it  makes  the  pronoun  such,  refer  to  a 
nearer  and  more  natural  antecedent,  instead  of  one  more 
remote.  The  amount  of  the  passage  is  this  ;  that  Paul 
beseeches  the  Christians  of  Corinth  to  submit  to  the 
saints,  by  ministering  to  them,  as  the  household  of  Ste- 
phanas had  ministered  to  them,  and  thus  submitted  to 
them  ;  and  as  all  saints  should  submit  to  one  another, 
and  serve  one  another.  This  should  remove  the  diffi- 
culty, on  the  part  of  the  Pedobaptists. 

But  it  was  observed  that  the  Baptists  also  stumble  at 
this  passage :  for  they  insist  that  it  proves  that  the 
oiKiA,  household^  of  Stephanas,  consisted  of  adults, 
who  officiated  as  deacons,  or  preachers,  or  both.  Ad- 
mitting, then,  that  oikos  and  oikia  have  the  same  mean- 
ing, they  consider  this  as  proof  that  the  baptized  oikos, 
household^  of  Stephanas,  consisted  of  these  same  adults, 
who  officiated  as  deacons  or  preachers,  or  both.  This 
conclusion,  however,  must  rest  upon  one  of  two  posi- 
tions, both  equally  false.  One  is,  that  there  is  no  other 
mmistration  allowed  in  the  Scriptures,  besides  an  offi- 
cial deaconry.  But  they  might  as  well  say  that  submis- 
sion is  always  official,  and  that  none  but  adults  can  yield 
submission  and  obedience.  It  may  be  easily  shewn  from 
Scripture  that  there  are  personal  and  pecuniary  minis- 
trations or  deaconriesj  which  the  saints  may  and  do  re- 
ceive from  children.  When  Jesus  went  to  Bethany,  it 
is  said,  "  There  they  made  him  a  supper,  and  Martha 
DEACONizED,  served.^^(o)  Was  hers  an  official  deaconry^ 
or  w^as  it  above  the  capacity  of  children  under  thirteen 
years  old,  whom  Jews  and  Christians  consider  subjects 
of  infant  circumcision  and  baptism  ?  There  are,  proba- 
bly, few  of  us  who  are  not  in  the  habit  of  seeing  such 
ministrations  from  children,  black  and  white,  bond  and 
free.  Again;  Paul  says,  ^^But  now  I  go  unto  Jerusalem, 
to  DE AGONIZE,  minister,  unto  the  saints. (/?)  If  this  pe- 
cuniary ministration  was  an  official  deaconry,  then  Paul 
held  the  office  of  a  deacon  in  the  church,  although  this 

(o)  Jno.  xii,  2,  (Ji)  Rom.  xv.  25. 


(     344     ) 

office  was  originally  instituted  for  the  relief  of  the  Apos- 
tles, whose  office  was  entirely  distinct.  Dr.  Gill,  there- 
fore, praises  the  Apostle's  condescension,  in  submitting 
to  this  inofficial  ministration,  *^  though  this  might  seem 
^^  below  his  office  as  an  apostle,  and  as  what  more  became 
''  an  inferior  officer,  a  deacon  in  the  church.'^  But  if 
children  may  minister  food  to  the  saints,  surely  they  may 
minister  money  also.  Let  the  collectors  of  the  sabbati- 
cal contributions  in  our  churches  say,  whether  children 
never  throw  in  their  mite.  Many  of  us  are  acquainted 
with  interesting  anecdotes  upon  this  subject ;  and  they 
are  becoming  more  common,  as  it  is  more  common  for 
parents  to  teach  their  children  to  give  their  pocket  mo- 
ney to  pious  and  benevolent  objects,  rather  than  for  the 
mere  gratification  of  their  palate.  Thus  the  first  posi- 
tion of  our  opponents  will  not  stand.  And  as  for  the  se- 
cond, that  household  always  excludes  infants,  we  hope  to 
shew  that  this  is  equally  untenable.  To  this  we  now 
more  directly  proceed. 

The  word  oikia,  now  under  consideration,  often  desig- 
nates places  or  property.  Such  is  thought  to  be  the  case, 
when  our  Saviour,  as  reported  by  three  of  the  Evangel- 
ists,(^)  censures  the  hypocritical  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
for  devouring  widows'  hnuses.  Dr.  Gill  believes  it  to 
mean  the  goods  deposited  in  their  houses.  My  Oppo- 
nent's New  Testament,  however,  in  all  three  of  these 
places,  renders  it  families ,  ye  '*  devour  the  families  of 
widows.'^  Now  if  widows  have  infimts,  and  these  in- 
fants belong  to  their  families^  then  infants  are  included 
in  the  word  oikia,  by  the  decision  of  my  Opponent's 
own  incomparable  translation  of  the  New  Testament. 
Even  where  this  word  does  signify  property,  it  is  apt  to 
be  that  sort  which  has  infant  tenants.  The  Septuagint 
uses  this  word  for  those  "  tents^^  in  which  the  '^  plain 
man"  Jacob  was  said  to  dwell. (^)  We  all  know  what 
sort  0^  di  family  Jacob  had,  to  occupy  these  tents.    This 

(g)  Matt,  xxiii.  14  Mark  xii.  40.  Luke  xx.  47, 
(X)  Gen.  XXV.  ir. 


(     345     ) 

word  is  used  in  that  text  also,  which  says,  "  As  for  the 
stork,  the  fir-trees  are  her  housed     Now  we  know  that 
the  house  or  nest  of  birds  is  usually  built  for  no  other 
end  than  the  accommodation  of  their  young.     Indeed 
Mr.  Thomson,  a  favourite  translator  of  my  Opponent, 
considers  these  directly  intended  in  the  text.  His  trans- 
lation of  the  Septuagint  says  "  The  family  of  the  stork 
account  them  their  own/'  Akin  to  these  texts  is  that  one 
which  says,  "  But  in  a  great  house,  there  are  not  only 
vessels  of  gold  and  of  silver,  but  also  of  wood  and  of  earth, 
and  some  to  honour,  and  some  to  dishonour.''(t)     This 
great  house  is  literally  the  place  and  the  property  of  the 
owner:  but  Gill  considers  it  a  figure  of  the  church. 
Whether  this  great  house  contains  any  small  vessels  or 
not,  may  be  learned  from  the  same  Apostle,  who  spoke 
to  the  Corinthians,  "  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ  ;'^y) 
and  said  to  the  Hebrews,  ^^  Every  one  that  useth  milk 
is  unskilful  in  the  word  of  righteousness:  for  he  is  a 
babeP[k)     Passing  over  many  instances  in  which  this 
word  directly  denotes  families  with  infants,  we  shall  only 
specify  two  or  three.  Moses  says  to  Israel,  '^  Thou  shalt 
rejoice  in  every  good  thing  which  the  Lord  thy  God 
hath  given  unto  thee,  and  unto  thine  houseP[l)  Dr.  Gill 
explains  it,  ^^To  them  and  \\\€\v  families,  by  which  they 
were  comfortably  provided  for.''     Here  the  word  is  ap- 
plied to  every  family  in  that  miraculously  fruitful  na- 
tion, and  is  used  in  connexion  with  that  provision  which 
God  made  for  the  youngest  infants  in  those  families ; 
with  which  the  parents  are  said  to  rejoice,  as  the  jailer 
did  with  all  his  house,     Jeremiah  said  to  Zedekiah, 
^^and  thou  shalt  live,  and  thy  house.^\m)    Dr.  Gill  says, 
'^not  only  himself,  but  his  wives  and  children  and  ser- 
vants,^^  It  appears,  then,  that  oikia  is  used  in  the  Greek 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  to  include 
children  and  servants.     The  same  thing  appears  more 
glaring,  if  possible,  in  that  passage  in  which  Joseph  says 
to  his  brethren,  ^^Fear  not;  I  will  nourish  you  and  your 

(0  2  Tim.  ii.  20.  0)  1  Cor.  iii.  1.  {k)  Heb.  v.  13. 

(/)  Deut.  xxvi.  11.         (w)Jer.  xxxviii.  17. 

X  X 


(     346     ) 

oiKiAS,  households y[n)  The  Hebrew  word(o)  whicli  is 
here  translated  oikias  by  the  Septuagint,  is  a  collective 
noun,  signifying,  as  Parkhurst  says,  ''young  childretiJ^ 
Calasio  explains  it  by  ^^Ccetus  seu  multitudo  pueuo- 
RUM  ET  iNFANTiUM,  a  colltction  Or  multitude  of  child- 
ren and  infantsP  The  latter,  with  the  Vulgate  and 
Tremellius,  has  rendered  it  in  the  text,  by  the  word 
PARVULOS,  little  ones;  exactly  the  rendering  of  our 
English  Bible,  ^^I  will  nourish  you  and  your  little  ones,^^ 
The  manner  in  which  the  word  is  used  throughout  the 
Scriptures,  proves  this  to  be  its  real  meaning.  Robin- 
son, after  his  fashion,  would  make  them  all  young  men 
and  women,  as  he  does  the  "  little  ones^^  of  Tertullian : 
but  Ezekiel  expressly  distinguishes  these  "  little  child- 
ren^^  as  our  translation  has  it,  from  old  men  and  women, 
from  young  men  and  maids. (/?)  And  the  history  prece- 
ding our  text,  speaks  of  these  little  ones  as  nurslings 
which  need  to  be  carried  in  waggons,  with  their  mothers 
and  the  aged  Patriarch  Jacob,  Pharaoh  says,  "  Take 
you  waggons  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  for  your  little  ones, 
and  for  your  wives,  and  bring  your  father,  and  come.^^ 
^'  And  Jacob  rose  up  from  Beer-sheba  ;  and  the  sons  of 
Israel  carried  Jacob  their  father,  and  their  little  ones, 
and  their  wives,  in  the  waggons  which  Pharaoh  had  sent 
to  carry  him.''(<7)  It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  when 
Joseph  promises  to  nourish  them  and  their  oikias,  Dr. 
Gill  should  explain  it,  as  he  has  done,  in  the  following 
words,  viz.  '^  I  will  nourish  you  and  your  little 
^'  ONES  ;  provide  food  for  them  and  their  families,  not 
"  only  for  themselves  and  their  sons,  now  grown  up,  but 
^'  their  grand  children,  and  even  the  youngest  and  latest 
^'  of  their  families  should  share  in  his  favours.'^  In  this 
instance  the  Septuagint  uses  oikia  not  as  a  general  term 
including  infants,  but  as  a  particular  and  distinct  design 
nation  of  infants.  If,  then,  as  Mr.  Anderson  and  my 
Opponent  alledge,  oikia  and  oikos  are  synonimous, 
oiKOS  also  must  designate  infants;  and  the  household 
baptism  of  the  New  Testament  be  infant  baptism. 

(n)  Gen.  1.  21.  (o)  f]t3 

(Ji)  Ez.  ix.  0.  {q)  Gen.  xlv.  19.  xlvi.  5. 


I 


(     347     ) 

ir. 

PANOIKIA. 

Taylor  quotes  from  Apocryphal  Greek,  that  Haman 
was  ''  hanged  at  the  gates  of  Susa,  sun  te  panoikia, 
''  with  all  his  household  ;^\s)  among  whom  were  ten 
sons.  This  was  in  consequence  of  Esther's  obtaining  a 
decree,  empowering  "  the  Jews  which  were  in  every 
^^  city,  to  gather  themselves  together,  and  to  stand  for 
'^  their  life,  to  destroy,  to  slay,  and  to  cause  to  perish, 
'^  all  the  power  of  the  people  and  province  that  would 
^^  assault  them,  both  little  ones  and  women. '^(/)  This 
decree  was  intended  as  an  offset  to  a  preceding  one  "  to 
"  destroy,  to  kill,  and  to  cause  to  perish,  all  Jews,  both 
''  young  and  old,  little  children  and  women. "(w)  It  must 
be  evident  to  every  candid  and  intelligent  person,  that 
it  was  Haman's  intention  to  destroy  every  Jewish  sub- 
ject with  his  whole  household,  "  young  w[\(\.  oMl,  little 
children  and  women ;''  that  it  was  the  intention  of  Mor- 
decai  and  Esther  to  destroy  every  assailant,  with  his 
"  LITTLE  ONES  and  women  :''  in  consequence  of  which 
retaliation,  thousands  of  infants  actually  perished,  some  of 
whom  most  probably  belonged  to  the  nxxm^vow^  panoikia 
of  Haman. 

III. 

PAROIKIA. 

^'  Now  these  are  the  names  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
which  came  into  Egypt ;  every  man  and  his  household 
came  with  Jacob. ''(i;)  For  household  here  the  Septua- 
agint  reads  Paroikia.(z^)  Dr.  Gill  considers  it  as  em- 
bracing "  their  families,  wives,  children,  and  servants.'^ 
After  the  armed  adventurers  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  had  se- 
cured Micah's  priest,  it  is  said  "  They  turned  and  de- 

(s)  Apocryphal  Esther  xvi.  18.  (Gr.  12.)  in  Bap.  Self-convict,  p.  45. 

(t)  Esther  viii.  11.  (w)  Esth.  iii.  13.  {y)  Ex.  i.  1. 

(w)  I  observe  that  the  Margin  of  Calasio  reads  fianoikU  This  is  the 
reading  of  Grab  :  but  the  Septuagint  of  Wechehus,  and  the  Venetian  edi- 
tion, both  weighty,  read /zaroifcfa. 


(     348     ) 

parted,  and  put  the  little  ones  and  the  cattle  and  the 
carriage  before  them.'^Co:)  Dr.  Gill  believes  that  these 
predatory  emigrants  carried  their  wives  with  them, 
though  they  are  not  mentioned.  As  for  these  "  little 
ones,^^  the  Doctor  considers  them  their  ^'  children,^^ 
"  Little  ones^^  is  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew,(y) 
and  is  an  exact  accordance  with  the  parvulos  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  of  Junius  and  Tremellius,  ofTrommius, 
and  of  Sebastian  Castallio.  The  Vatican  Septuagint  has 
TA  TEKNE,  children,  a  good  rendering,  though  a  bad 
reading.  Grab  has  a  better  reading,  panoikia  ;  and 
best  of  all,  the  Aldine  Septuagint  reads  paroikia.  This 
reading  is  reported  by  Calasio,  in  the  margin  of  his  He- 
brew Concordance,  and  found  in  the  text  of  the  Franc- 
fort  Septuagint,  used  by  Kircher  and  Trommius  in  their 
Concordances  to  the  Septuagint.  Here  then,  is  an  in- 
stance in  which  this  ancient  version  uses  paroikia,  not 
as  a  general  term  including  infants,  but  as  a  particular 
and  distinct  designation  of  infants.  The  conclusion  to 
which  analogy  would  lead  us  is  obvious. 

IV. 

PASA  PAROIKIA  or  PANOIKIA. 
The  first  is  the  reading  of  the  Francfort  edition,  and 
the  second  of  the  Vatican  and  others,  in  Gen.  1.  22.  ^^And 
^'  Joseph  dwelt  in  Egypt,  he  and  his  brethren,  and  all 
"  his  father's  numerous  household.''^  Dr.  Gill  says, 
"  Not  only  he  but  his  brethren  and  \\\€\v  families P  The 
preceding  verse  shews  that  these  families  were  composed, 
in  great  part,  of  "  little  ones,"  there  called  oikia.  These 
infants,  then,  must,  of  course,  be  included  in  pasa  pa- 
noikia,  which  appears  intended  to  magnify  oikia  doubly. 

V. 

OIKOS. 

Like  oikia  this  sometimes  signifies  property,   bona, 
FACULTATES,  as  Hcdcricus  explains  it.     The  Lord  said 

(jt)  Judg.  xviii.  21.  (y)  ^ 


(     349     ) 

to  David,  ''  I  gave  thee  thy  Master's  house,^\z)  Gill 
says  "  his  family,  his  wives,  servants,  wealth  and  rich- 
''  es.'^  Solomon  says,  "  If  a  man  would  give  all  the 
"  substance  of  his  house  for  love,  it  would  utterly  be 
"  contemned. ^'(a)  So  the  thief  "  shall  give  all  the 
''  substance  of  his  house,^\b)  So  Jehoram's  enemies 
"  carried  away  all  the  substance  that  was  found  in  the 
''  king's  house,^\c)  Pharaoh  says  to  Joseph,  ''  Thou 
''  shalt  be  over  my  houseP{d)  Gill  says,  ''  have  the 
'^  care  of  his  domestic  aifairs,  and  be  the  principal  man 
^^in  his  palace  and  court.'^  While  with  Potiphar,  Jo- 
seph said,  "  Behold  my  master  wotteth  not  what  is 
"  with  me  in  the  houseP{t)  Gill  says,  "  what  goods  or 
'^  money  are  in  it.'^  Concerning  the  dinner  which  Jo- 
seph gave  to  his  brethren,  he  gave  orders  '^  to  the  ruler 
"  of  his  house.^^  Gill  says,  "  his  steward ;''  and  so  Mo- 
ses calls  him  in  the  context.(/)  The  steward  of  the 
house  was  to  take  care  of  the  property  which  was  in  the 
house.  But  when  this  word  denotes  the  building  itself, 
and  still  more  when  it  is  applied  to  persons,  it  illustrates 
and  confirms  the  doctrine  that  household  baptism  is  in- 
fant baptism,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  following  particu- 
lars. 

1 .  The  Material  or  Mechanical  House,  For  a  few 
examples  we  would  refer  to  the  house  of  Zacharias  and 
Mary  ;(^)  the  house  which  the  owner  suffered  to  be 
broken  through;  (A)  the  king's  Aow^e,  and  houses  of  the 
people,  which  the  Chaldeans  burned  with  fire.(i)  They 
burnt  moreover  the  house  of  the  Lord,  which  was  a 
figure  of  the  church,  with  all  its  members,  infant  and 
adult.r/)  Our  Translators  have  once  rendered  oikos, 
temple  ;{h)  and  where  they  say,  "  Your  house  is  left 
unto  you  desolate,"(/)  Gill  considers  it  as  including  ^^the 

(z)  2  Sam.  xii.  8.  («)  Cant.  viii.  7. 

b)  Prov.  vi.  31  (c)  2  Chr.  xxi.  17. 

d)  Gen.  xli.  40—4.  So  Gen.  xlv.  8.  and  Acts  vii.  10. 

e)  Gen.  xxxix.  8. 

(/)  Gen.  xliii.  16.  19.  So  Gen,  xxxix.  4.  5.  Ps.  cv.  21. 

{g)  Luke  i.  40.  56.  (/z)  Luke  xii.  39. 

(?)  Jer.  xxxix,  8,  (^J  )  Jer.  Hi.  13. 

{k)  Luke  xi.  51.  (/)  Matt.  Xxiii.  38. 


(     350     ) 

^'  temple,  formerly  the  house  of  God,  but  now  only 
'^  theirs/'  With  the  burning  of  this  house,  Ezekiel 
expressly  connects  the  slaying  of  their  sons  and  daugh- 
ters ;(/?2)  and  the  Septuagint  considered  Ezra  as  impli- 
citly recognizing  this  connexion,  when  he  calls  it  "  The 
"  house  of  the  great  God,  which  is  builded  with  elect 
^^  stones,'*(w)  according  to  their  rendering.  As  they 
have  here  called  the  constituents  of  the  material  temple, 
elect  stones,  so  they  have  elsewhere  applied  the  epithet 
elect,  to  the  foundation  and  chief-corner  stone  of  the 
spiritual  temple. («j  In  this  they  are  copied  by  the  Apos- 
tle Peter,  where  he  speaks  of  the  spiritual  house  being 
built  up  of  lively  stones. ip)  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  the  building  of  the  material  house  of  elect  stones, 
is  intended  to  illustrate  the  building  of  the  spiritual 
house  of  elect  stones,  and  of  infants,  of  course,  if  there 
be  any  elect  infants.  That  there  are  elect  infants,  is 
admitted  even  by  the  most  rigid  Calvinists;  among 
whom  I  desire  always  to  be  ranked.  On  this  subject  my 
sentiments  are  exactly  expressed  by  our  excellent  Con- 
fession. C^')  As  almost  all  errorists  believe  in  the  univer- 
sal election  of  infants,  both  sides  should  agree  that  they 
belong  to  this  house. 

2.  The  Spiritual  House,  Paul  says  of  Christ,  that 
he  is  a  faithful  ruler  ^^  a  son  over  his  own  house  ; 
"  whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and 
''  the  rejoicing  of  the  hope  firm  unto  the  end."(r)  The 
angel  said  to  Mary,  "  He  shall  reign  over  the  house  of 
''  Jacob  forever."(«)  Dr.  Gill  says,  "  As  his  father 
"  David  reigned  over  the  Idumeans,  Syrians,  and  others, 
'^  as  well  as  over  the  house  of  Judah,  and  Israel,  so  this 
''  his  son  shall  reign  over  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  :  his 
''  kingdom  shall  be  from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the 
''  other,  even  over  all  the  elect  of  God.''  Now  if 
there  are  infants  to  be  found  among  ^'  Jews  and  Gen- 
*'  tiles ;"  if  there  are   infants  to  be  found  '^  from  one 


(m)  Ez.xxiii.  47.  («)  Ezr.  v.  8. 

(o)  Is^  xxviii.  16.  (A)  1  Pet.  ii.  5.  6. 

(7)  Chap,  10.  Sect,  3.  (r)  Hcbr.  iii.  6.  (»)  Luke  i.  M. 


(     351      ) 

^^  end  of  ihe  earth  to  tlie  other ;"  and  if  there  are  in- 
fants to  be  found  among  "  all  the  elect  of  God  ;"  then, 
according  to  this  commentary  of  the  great  Dr.  Gill,  in- 
fants must  be  included  in  that  "  house  of  Jacob/^  over 
which  Christ  shall  reign  for  ever.  The  fact  that  every 
converted  adult  becomes  a  spiritual  infant  in  regenera- 
tion, will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  be  more  for  us 
than  against  us.  In  relation  to  this  spiritual  birth,  the 
scriptures  speak  as  follows.  "  Sing,  0  barren,  thou 
that  didst  not  bear  ;  break  forth  into  singing,  and  cry 
aloud,  thou  that  didst  not  travail  with  child  :  for  more 
are  the  children  of  the  desolate,  than  the  children  of  the 
married  wife,  saith  the  Lord."(0  In  reference  to  this 
desolate  church  it  is  said,  "  God  setteth  the  solitary  in 
farailies,(w)  Gill  understands  this  of  converts,  who  ''  are 
^'  set  in  families,  or  placed  in  gospel  churches,  which, 
''  as  families,  have  a  master  over  them,  who  is  Christ  the 
^'  Son  and  first  born,  of  whom  they  are  named  ;  where  are 
^'  saints  of  various  ages,  sizes,  and  standing;  some  fathers, 
''  some  young  men,  and  some  children^  Paul  had  to 
speak  to  the  Corinthians,  ^^even  as  unto  babes  in 
''  Christ. '^(f)  To  the  Hebrews  he  said,  "  For  every 
"  one  that  useth  milk  is  unskilful  in  the  word  of  right- 
''  eousness,  for  he  is  a  babe.^'(i^)  Concerning  the  ex- 
cellent woman,  Solomon  says,  ^'  She  riseth  also  while  it 
is  yet  night;  and  giveth  meat  to  her  household,  and  a 
portion  to  her  maidens. ''(:c)  Dr.  Gill  says  that  ^^spirit- 
"  ually  may  be  meant  by  her  household  or  family,  the 
^'  same  with  the  family  of  Christ,  that  is  named  of  him- 
"  self,  which  consists  of  various  persons,  fathers,  young 
"  men  and  children.''  As  to  the  maidens,  the  ministers, 
these  are  to  distribute  "  milk  indeed  to  babes,  and  meat 
''  to  strong  men.''  Of  this  same  woman,  Solomon  says, 
"  She  is  not  afraid  of  the  snow  for  her  household ;  for 
^^  all  her  household  Sire  clothed  with  scarlet."(y)     Gill 

(0  Isa.  liv.  1.  Comp.  Gal.  iv.  26.  27. 
{u)  Ps.  Ixviii.  6.  (x>)  1  Cor.  iii.  1. 

(w)  Hebr.  v.  13.  (x)  Prov.  xxxi.  15, 

(y)  Prov.  xxxi.  21. 


(     352     ) 

admits  that  this  passage  has  a  literal  meaning,  and  that 
of  course,   literal  infants  are  included  in  this  woman's 
household :  but  when  he  spiritualizes  it,   and  considers 
the  scarlet  clothing  as  pointing  to  Christ's  blood,  does 
he  mean  that  no  literal  infants  have  the  benefit  of  this 
crimson  covering?  Certainly  not.  Then,  as  I  said  before, 
the  fact  that  adults  become  spiritual  infants  by  regenera- 
tion, by  no  means  refutes  the  doctrine  that  there  are 
literal  infants  in  the  spiritual  household,  but  rather  es- 
tablishes it.      When  Peter  says,  "  Ye  also,  as  lively 
"  stones,   are  built  up  a   spiritual  house,^\z)  Gill  says 
that  these  lively  stones  ''  lie   in  the  same  quarry,  and 
''  are  the  same  by  nature,   as  the  rest  of  mankind,  till 
*^  dug  out  and  separated  from  thence,  by  the  powerful 
^'  and  efficacious  grace  of  God.''     Now  I  would  ask, 
are  there  no  literal  infants  in  nature's  quarry  ?  and  are 
there  no  literal  infants  which  are  "  dug  out  from  thence 
"  by  the  powerful  and  efficacious  grace  of  God  ?"   You 
will  answer,  Yes.     Then  there  are  literal  infants  belong- 
ing to  the  spiritual  house.      But  the  Doctor   believes 
that  there  is  a  spiritual  house  of  Antichrist  as  well  as 
of  Christ.     When  Solomon  says,  "  The  Lord  will  de- 
''  stroy  the  house  of  the  proud, "(«)  Gill  understands 
it  generally,  as  including  all  proud  persons,  "  their/am- 
''  Hies,  their  children,  djad  posterity  ;^^  and  particularly, 
''  the  house  of  the   foolish  and  adulterous  woman,  the 
'^  idolatrous  church  of  Rome."     Now  I  ask,  are  there 
no  infants  in  the  families,  children,  and  posterity  of  the 
proud  ?  Are  there  no  infants  in  the  house  of  the  Roman 
Harlot?     The  Anabaptists  say  that  infant  baptism  is  a 
main  pillar  of  Popery.     Yet  they  themselves  must  and 
do  acknowledge  that  the  spiritual  house  of  Christ  has 
infants,  as  certainly  as  the  spiritual  house  of  Antichrist. 
Analogy,  therefore,  would  teach  us  that  household  bap- 
tism is  really  infant  baptism  ;  alihough  we   should  be 
very  far  from  following  the  Roman  Antichrist  in  their 
corruptions  of  this  ordinance. 

(r)  1  Pet  ii.  5.  (a)  Prov.  xv.  25. 


(     353     ) 

3.  The  Ecclesiastical  House,  Several  texts  quoted 
on  the  spiritual  house,  are  instances  which  apply,  prima- 
rily and  literally,  to  the  domestic  house  hereafter  to  be 
considered:  but  Dr.  Gill,  by  an  allowable  allegorizing, 
applies  them  to  the  invisible  church,  and  also,  in  general, 
to  the  visible  church,  the  ecclesiastical  house.  On  that 
passage  in  which  Solomon^s  woman  "  giveth  meat  to  her 
household,  and  a  portion  to  her  maidens ;''  Gill  says, 
''  It  is  by  these  the  church  gives  meat  to  her  household.''^ 
When  Solomon  says,  "  He  maketh  the  barren  woman  to 
"  keep  house,  and  to  be  a  joyful  mother  of  children." 
Gill  says,  ''  This  may  be  applied  to  the  church  of  God, 
"  as  it  is  to  the  congregation  of  Israel  by  the  Targum." 
But  if  this  application  be  made,  it  must  recognize  literal 
infants  in  the  church  of  God ;  for  they  belong  to  the 
congregation  of  Isi^ael ;  and  they  are  certainly  included 
in  the  house  here  mentioned,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the 
passage,  according  to  an  express  statement  of  Dr.  Gill, 
which  we  may  take  a  future  opportunity  of  quoting.  The 
membership  of  infants  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches  alike,  shews  itself  plainly,  to  one  who  traces 
through  the  New  Testament,  this  important  word  house- 
hold. ^'  Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and 
foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the 
household  of  God  ;  and  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner  stone. '^(^j  Here  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian societies  are  considered  as  one  household,  built  upon 
a  common  foundation,  and  united  by  a  common  corner. 
But  it  is  certain  that  household  circumcision  was  in- 
fant circumcision;  and  if  the  Jewish  household  in- 
cluded infants,  why  not  the  Christian  household  ?  It 
is  said  moreover,  that  "  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all 
"  his  house,  as  a  servant,  for  a  testimony  of  those  things 
^'  which  w^ere  to  be  spoken  after.''  Dr.  Gill  says,  ^^He 
'^  was  not  a  servant  in  the  world,  and  with  respect  to 
"  civil  things,  and  the  affairs  of  Providence,  but  in  the 

{b)  Eph.  ii.  19—22. 

Yy  •     - 


(     354     ) 

^^  church  of  God,^^  even  "  in  the  house  of  Israel,  or 
^^  among  that  people  which  were  the  Lord/ s  family  ''(c) 
Whether  the  "  Lord's  family,''^  as  it  existed  in  the 
''  house  of  IsraeV^  had  infants  or  not,  judge  ye.  It  is 
undeniable  that  infants  did  belong  to  the  Jewish  ecclesi- 
astical house.  But  PauFs  words  which  immediately 
follow  those  just  now  quoted,  prove  the  identity  of  the 
Jewish  and  the  Christian  ecclesiastical  house:  ^^  But 
'^  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house,  whose  house  are 
^^  we,^'[d)  In  the  preceding  verse,  Dr.  Gill  could  see 
plainly  that  an  ecclesiastical  house  was  meant :  His  com- 
mentary would  have  been  more  correct  and  perspicuous, 
if  he  had  told  us  the  same  of  this  last  verse,  which  be- 
longs to  the  same  sentence ;  especially  when  the  same 
Apostle  tells  a  Christian  minister  how  to  behave  himself 
^*  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the  church  of  the  living 
^^  God. "(e)  But  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Doc- 
tor meant  a  church,  when  he  spoke  of  a  spiritual  house, 
as  he  does  in  his  exposition  of  Peter's  "  spiritual  house,''- 
where  he  says,  ^^  These  living  stones,  being  laid  and  ce- 
^^  mented  together,  in  a  gospel  church-state,  become 
^^  the  house  of  God  in  a  spiritual  sense. "(/)  In  con- 
formity with  these  views,  the  ecclesiastical  house  to 
which  I  belong,  considers  itself  a  spiritual  house  built 
upon  a  spiritual  foundation.  In  speaking  of  the  judica- 
tories of  the  church,  our  Constitution  says,  ^' These  as- 
^'  semblies  ought  not  to  possess  any  civil  jurisdiction, 
^*  nor  to  inflict  any  civil  penalties.  Their  power  is 
^^  wholly  moral  or  spiritual,  and  that  only  ministerial 
^^  and  declarative. "(^)  Accordingly  they  say,  "  There 
^'  is  no  other  head  of  the  church  but  the  Lord  Jesus 
^'  Christ  r'T^)  even  he  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  The  stone 
'•  which  the  builders  refused,  is  become  the  head  stone 
^^  of  the  corner.''(e)     Gill  tells  us  that  those  rejectors 


(0  Gill  on  Hebr.  iii.  5.  and  Num.  xii.  7. 

Hebr.  iii.  6.  (f)  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 

)  Gill  on  1  Pet.  ii.  5. 
\g)  Form  of  Gov.  Chap.  8.  Sect.  2. 
\K)  Confess,  of  Faith.  Chnp.  25.  Sept.  6, 
[O  Ps.  cxviii.  22. 


n. 


(      335      ) 

are  ^'  those  who  were  the  support  of  their  civil  state, 
^^  and  the  maintainers  of  it ;  but  more  especially  their 
^^  ecclesiastical  builders.^'  "  They  refused  to  make  use 
''  of  him  in  the  spiritual  building/^  This  spiritual  ec- 
clesiastical house  in  which  the  Jews  refused  to  use  this 
head  corner  stone,  had  infants,  beyond  all  contradiction; 
and  one  instance  in  which  they  rejected  him  from  their 
building,  was,  when  ^^All  the  people  answered  and 
^^said.  His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  "children,^\j)  Dr. 
Gill  says,  "  It  is  a  notion  of  the  Jews,  that  the  guilt  of 
"  innocent  blood,  and  the  blood  of  that  innocent  man's 
''  children,  lie  not  only  upon  the  persons  immediately 
"  concerned  but  upon  their  children  to  the  end  of  the 
"  world."  "  This  imprecation  of  theirs  has  been  no- 
^^  toriously  verified  in  them.''  ^^On  the  generality  of 
^'  them  his  blood  was,  in  the  sense  they  wished  it." 
''  And  to  this  day  this  dreadful  wish  of  the  blood  of 
"  Christ  upon  them  is  to  be  seen  in  their  miserable,  ab- 
^^  ject  and  captive  state  ;  and  will  be,  until  such  time 
^'  as  they  look  to  him  whom  they  have  pierced  and 
''  mourn. '^  This  appears  to  be  contemplated  by  that 
prediction  that  "  Judgment  must  begin  at  the  house  of 
"  God. ''(A)  When  this  judgment  did  begin,  the  in- 
fants of  this  house  of  God  were  in  some  cases  actually 
eaten  by  their  own  mothers,  as  we  are  informed  both  by 
scripture  prophecy  and  the  history  of  Josephus.  But 
before  this  just  and  dreadful  judgment  against  the  Old 
Testament  ecclesiastical  house,  with  its  adults  and  in- 
fants, Christ  came  '^  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
''  Israelj^\l)  with  its  adults  and  infants:  and  he  is  still 
"  an  High  Priest  over  the  house  of  God,^\m)  with  its 
^'  adults  and  infants,  and  "  he  shall  reign  over  the  house 
"  of  Jacob  forever  :"(/2)  for  even  in  the  New  Testament 
dispensation,  "  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your 
"  children.'' 

(  ;■  )  Matt,  xxvii.  25.  {k)  1  Pet.  iv.  If, 

(0  Matt.  XV.  24.  (m)  Hebr.  x.  21. 

(n)  Luke  i.  33. 


(     356     J 

4.  The  Celestial  House.  The  Septuagint  makes  Job 
say,  "  Hades  is  my  oikos.^\o)  If  the  unseen  world  is 
here  meant,  it  must  be  that  state  of  departed  spirits  in 
which  Job's  Redeemer  lived. (j&)  There  must  certainly 
be  infants  there.  Whether  Job  referred  to  this  happy 
rest  or  not,  we  know  that  our  Saviour  did,  in  a  passage 
where  the  evangelist  uses  a  word,  which  my  Opponent 
says  differs  from  oikos,  no  more  than  brothers  differs 
from  brethren.  He  says,  ^^  In  my  Father's  oikia,  house, 
''  are  many  mansions."(5')  Some  of  the  mansions  in  this 
house  must  certainly  have  infant  tenants.  So  Paul  says, 
"  We  have  a  building  of  God,  an  oikia,  house,  not  made 
with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens. "(r) 

5.  The  JVational  House.  As  the  passages  to  be  ad- 
duced under  this  particular,  can  hardly  be  understood 
without  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  it  will  be  well  to  re- 
member a  few  plain  authorities  in  support  of  this  im- 
portant scriptural  truth.  Concerning  the  wicked.  Job 
says,  "  God  layeth  up  his  iniquity  for  his  children. "(5) 
Dr.  Gill  says,  ^'  God  does  not  punish  them  [the  wicked] 
''  now  for  their  sins  in  their  own  persons,  yet  he  will 
^'  punish  them  in  their  children,  for  whom  he  reserves 
"  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity."  "  And  when  they 
"  have  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  fathers'  sins,  by 
^^  their  own  transgressions,  the  deserved  punishment 
^^  shall  be  inflicted,  according  to  Ex.  xx.  3."  The  Lord 
said  to  Israel,  "  But  as  for  you,  your  carcases,  they  shall 
^"  fall  in  this  wilderness.  And  your  children  shall  wan- 
^^  der  in  the  wilderness  forty  years,  and  bear  your 
^'  whoredoms  ;"r^)  that  is,  ''  the  punishment  of  their 
^'  idolatries,"  as  Dr.  Gill  says ;  for,  says  he,  "  It  was 
^'  on  account  of  them,  their  children  wandered  so  long 
*'  in  the  wilderness."  Jeremiah,  in  speaking  for  his  peo- 
ple, says,  "  Our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not,  and 
"  we  have  borne  their  iniquities  ;'^(wj  that  is,  according 
to  Dr.  Gill,  ^'  the  punishment  of  them,  or  chastisement 

{u')  .lob  xvii.  13.  (fi)  Job  xix.  25,  {q)  Jno.  xiv,  2. 

(r)  2  Cor.  v.  ].  («)  Job  xxi.  19.  (r)  Num.  xiv.  32,  33. 

(m)  Lani.  V.  7. 


(     357     ) 

^^  for  them  :  this  is  not  said  by  way  of  complaint,  much 
"  less  as  charging  God  with  injustice,  in  punishing  them 
''  for  their  fathers^  sins,  or  to  excuse  theirs,  for  they 
'^  were  ready  to  own  that  they  had  consented  to  them, 
"  and  were  guilty  of  the  same;  but  to  obtain  mercy  and 
"  pity  at  the  hands  of  God."'  How  different  this  lan- 
guage of  the  great  and  pious  Baptist  Commentator,  from 
that  of  the  impious  and  Deistical  Robinson,  my  Oppo- 
nent's master :  and,  at  present,  the  darling  of  the  Bap- 
tist church! !  The  same  doctrine  is  plainly  taught  in  the 
following  passages.  "  Prepare  slaughter  for  his  chil- 
"  dren  for  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers ;  that  they  do 
''  not  rise,  nor  possess  the  land,  nor  fill  the  face  of  the 
'^  world  with  cities. "(«;)  Millions  of  infants  thus  perish- 
ed in  "  the  nations  whom  the  Lord  destroyed  before  the 
''  children  of  Israel  \^\w)  and  afterward  in  the  Jewish 
nation  itself,  concerning  which,  Christ  said,  "  All  these 
''  things  shall  come  upon  this  generation. "(:c)  The  same 
is  true  of  Babylon,  which,  in  one  place,  Jeremiah  calls 
''  that  nation, '^\y)  in  another,  "  the  daughter  of  Baby- 
"  Ion  \^Uz)  in  which  latter  place  the  Septuagint  uses 
oiKOS,  house,  for  daughter.  That  all  these  national 
houses  are  full  of  infants  cannot  be  denied.  It  is  re- 
markable that  the  Septuagint  often  puts  the  word  house 
for  children,  and  children  for  house.  Thus,  when  the 
Original  reads  "  0  children  of  Israel  !'^  the  Septuagint 
reads  "  0  house  of  Israel  !"(a)  When  the  Original  con- 
demns Mount  Sier  for  slaughtering  "  the  children  of  Is- 
rael," the  Septuagint  has  it  "  the  house  of  Israel  :"(Z>)  in 
which  national  house,  infants  are  certainly  included  ;  as 
in  many  other  instances  of  a  similar  description  ;  in  one 
of  which,  while  the  Septuagint  has  oiKos,  house,  other 
Greek  translators,  Tas  Trommius  shews,)  use  huioi,  chil- 
dren ;{c)  thus  shewing,  that  house  and  children  were  in- 
terchangeable terms.  This  is  farther  confirmed  from  the 

(y)  Isa.  xiv.  21,         (^w)  2  Kings  xxi.  9.         (jt)  Matt  xxiii.  36. 
(y)  Jer.  xxv.  12.         (z)  Jer.  li.  33.  (a)  Am.  iii.  1. 

(o)  Ez.  xxxv.  5.        (c)  Ez.  ii  3.     For  other  cases  alledged,  see  Ez. 
xxxvii.  21.  Jer.  xxiii.  7.  xvi.  14.  Ez.  xliv.  9.  xxxvii.  21. 


(     358     ) 

other  fact  just  mentioned ;  that  where  house  is  in  the 
Original,  the  word  children  is  often  found  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  When  Ezekiel  distributes  his  two  sticks  to 
the  two  nations  into  which  the  twelve  tribes  had 
been  long  divided,  he  assigns  one  to  "  all  the  house 
of  Israel,'^  or  to  the  "  children'^  of  Israel,((/)  accord- 
ing to  the  Septuagint,  in  such  a  way  as  to  embrace 
every  inftmt  in  the  nation.  Many  other  instances  of  this 
rendering  also  are  at  hand.(e)  Analogous  to  this  ancient 
way  of  translating  Hebrew  into  Greek,  is  the  way  in 
which  the  Ancients  rendered  Greek  into  Syriac  ;  when 
speaking  not  of  the  national,  but  of  the  domestic  house j 
whether  this  domestic  house  be  designated  by  oikos  or 
oikia,  ovpanoiki,  and  whether  the  children  of  this  house 
be  mere  infants,  ov  children  of  an  age  to  hear  the  gospel 
and  receive  instruction,  yet  young  enough  to  be  discipled 
upon  the  faith  of  their  parents.  In  the  New  Testament 
we  are  told  that  Paul  and  Silas  spoke  the  word  of  the 
Lord  to  the  jailer  ''  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  oikia, 
houseJ^  The  Syriac  Translation  says,  "  to  all  the 
children  of  his  houseJ^  Immediately  after  we  are  told 
that  the  jailer  "  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  panoiki, 
with  all  his  house.*^  The  Syriac  saysj  "  and,  or  then, 
rejoiced  both  he  and  all  the  children  of  his  house,  in  the 
faith  of  God."  In  the  same  chapter  it  is  related  that 
Lydia  "  was  baptized  and  her  oikos,  house."  The 
Syriac  says  "  and  the  children  of  her  house^if)  That 
this  was  done  upon  her  faith,  is  evident  from  the  language 
of  her  invitation  to  her  instructors,  which  my  Opponent 
says,  "  is  the  most  singular  invitation  on  record. 'Y^)  He 
may  well  be  amazed  at  the  whole  transaction ;  since  it 
not  only  proves,  that  through  Lydia's  faith,  she  and  her 
household  was  baptized,  but  gives  us  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  joy  of  the  jailer's  household,  was  just  that  sort 
of  happiness  which  must  have  been  diffused  through  the 
household  of  Lydia,  and  is  generally  communicated  to 

(rf)  Ez.  xxxvii.  16.  (e)  Joshua  xxi.  45.    Lev.  xvii.  3.   xxii.  18. 

2  Sam.  vi.  5.  Jer.  ii.  26.  Ez.  iii.  1.  xii.  24.  iv.  3. 
(/)  Acts  xvi.  15.  32,  34.  {g)  Spurious  Debate  with  me,  p.  265. 


(     359     ) 

the  household  of  a  pious  Pedobaptist,  through  the  faith 
of  the  head,  and  the  covenant  blessings  of  the  baptized 
members. 

6.    The  Sectional  House,     As  the  whole  nation  was 
called  a  house,  so  was  each  section  or  tribe.     To  decide 
the  dispute  concerning  Aaron's  priesthood,  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses  to  '''  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
"  and  take  of  every  one  of  them  a  rod^  according  to  the 
"  house  of  their  fathers,  of  all  their  princes,  according 
''  to  the  house  of  their  fathers,  twelve  rods. "(A)    These 
twelve  rods  were  for  the  twelve  tribes  or  twelve  section- 
al houses  into  which  the  national  house  of  Israel  was 
distributed.    That  each  of  these  houses  had  a  great  pro- 
portion of  infants,  will  not  probably  be  disputed  ;  espe- 
cially as  we  can  give  an  authentic  account  of  their  twelve 
fathers,  which  my  Opponent  thinks  so  important  in  the 
case  of  Lydia?     In  this  sense  oikos  occurs  in  the  Septu- 
agint  as  often  as  fifteen  times  in  one  Chapter.     In  one 
of  these  places,  God  says,  "  Take  ye  the  sum  of  all  the 
^^  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,  after  their  fami- 
^'  lies,  by  the  house  of  their  fathers. ''(f)  Gill  says,  "Af- 
''  ter  their  families  ;  into  which  their  tribes  were  divi- 
"  ded  :  by  the  house  of  their  fathers;  for  if  the  mother 
'^  was  of  one  tribe,  and  the  father  of  another,  the  family 
^'  was  according  to  the  tribe  of  the  father,  as  Jarchi 
^'  notes,  a  mother's  family  being  never  called  a  family, 
^'  as  Aben  Ezra  observes."    Out  of  these  sectional  houses 
Moses   made  a  selection  of  such  as  were  over  twenty 
years  and  not  superannuated,  nor  otherwise  unfit  for  war. 
The  selection  shews  that  the  million  of  children  from 
whom  they  were  drafted,  belonged  to  the  houses  as  well 
as  themselves.     This  passage  my  Opponent  has  treated 
in  the  following  artful  manner,  viz.   "  This  same  oikos 
''  occurs  14  times  in  the  first  chapter  of  Numbers,  and 
^^  includes  under  12  occurrences,  603,550  adults  from 
^'  20  years  and  upwards.''!/)     This  sweeping  declara- 
tion was  made  in  such  a  way  as  to  strike  your  minds  with 

{h)  Num.  xvii.  2,  3.  {t)  Num,  i,  2. 

Ij)  Spurious  Debate  with  me,  p.  282,  Note. 


(     360     ) 

the  impression  that  these  twelve  houses  were  composed 
of  adults  only,  and  that  the  including,  of  which  he 
speaks,  referred  to  the  sum  of  the  twelve  particulars, 
each  of  which  consisted  of  male  adults  exclusively.  If 
so,  it  would  be  a  far  more  brilliant  case  than  the  house 
of  Noah,  which  consisted  of  eight  adults  without  one  in- 
fant; and  far  more  impressive  than  the  family  of  Christ, 
which  consisted  of  more  than  eight  disciples,  without 
one  female  communicant.  But  on  examination,  it  turns 
out  far  otherwise.  Instead  of  these  warriors  constituting 
the  tribe,  family,  and  house  of  their  fathers,  they  were, 
as  Dr.  Gill  says,  only  *^all  in  every  tribe,  family,  and 
''  house,  that  were  above  20  years  of  age,  healthful  and 
^^  strong,  and  fit  for  w^ar.^^  In  this  respect,  they  resem- 
bled the  twelve  princes  who  drafted  them.  Instead  of 
their  composing  the  house  themselves  as  Noah's  adults 
did,  it  seems,  according  to  Moses,  that  ^^each  one  was 
FOR  the  house  of  his  fathers;"  as  Dr.  Gill  says,  ^^for 
"  the  tribe  he  belonged  to,  with  which  it  might  reason - 
'^  ably  be  supposed  he  was  best  acquainted,  and  could 
^'  more  readily  take  the  number  of  them.''(^)  At  a  sub  • 
sequent  period  of  the  Jewish  history  it  is  said  that  Na- 
shon  was  a  ^^  Prince  of  the  oikos  of  Judah."(/)  Now 
it  may  be  asked,  were  there  any  infants  in  this  oikos  ? 
and  did  or  did  they  not  owe  allegiance  to  Nashon  as 
members  of  the  oikos  over  which  he  was  a  prince  ?  In 
this  place  the  Hebrew  reads  children  instead  of  house, 
as  the  Septuagint  reads  children  in  several  other  places 
where  the  sectional ''  house'^  is  found  in  the  Original, 
embracing  ini\ints  in  it.(m) 

7.  The  Royal  House.  Under  this  particular  we  have 
again  to  notice  the  punishment  of  children  and  grand 
children  for  the  sins  of  parents.  The  Lord  told  David 
that  the  famine  was  "for  Saul  and  his  bloody  house; 
'^  because  he  slew  the  Gibeonites.''  On  which  account, 
long  after  Saul  was  dead,  the  Giheonites  said  that  they 
would  not  accept  a  pecuniary  ransom  "  of  Saul,  nor  of 

(it)  GUI  on  Num.  i.  44.  45.  (/)  1  Clir.  ii.  10. 

(w)  See  Joshua  xvii.  17.  xviii.  5.  Ez.  xxv.  12.  Hos.  i.  7. 


(     361     ) 


1 


''  his  hou8e^^\n)  but  demanded  that  seven  of  that  house 
should  be  executed  by  way  of  retaliation.  Five  of  the 
seven  were  Saul's  grandchildren,  the  sons  of  his  daugh- 
ter Michal,  by  Barzillai.  Concerning  the  royal  son  of 
Nebat,  God  says,  "  I  will  bring  evil  upon  the  house  of 
Jeroboam,"  "  and  will  take  away  the  remnant  of  the 
"  house  of  Jeroboam."  In  this  house  there  was  a  child, 
concerning  which  it  is  said,  "  All  Israel  shall  mourn  for 
'^  him  and  bury  him  ;  for  he  only  of  Jeroboam  shall 
"  come  to  the  grave,  because  in  him  there  is  found  some 
'^  good  thing,  towards  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  in  the 
''house  of  Jeroboam. "(o)  When  God  said  to  David, 
"  The  sword  shall  never  depart  from  thy  house^^^  "  I 
'*  will  raise  up  evil  against  thee  out  of  thine  own  house,^^ 
he  says,  '*  the  child  also  that  is  born  unto  thee  shall 
'^  surely  die  :"(j&)  leaving  us  to  conclude  that  this  child 
belonged  to  his  house,  as  the  child  of  Jeroboam  belonged 
to  his  house.  When  God  said  by  the  Prophet  Amos, 
"  I  will  rise  against  the  house  of  Jeroboam, "(^'J  Gill  con- 
siders it  to  mean  "  \h^  family  of  Jeroboam."  When  it 
is  said  that  Zimri  '^slew  all  the  house  of  Baasha,'Y^j 
Gill  says  that  it  means  "  his  whole  f ami li/,  all  the  child- 
"  ren  that  he  had  ;"  and  ''  not  only  his  posterity,  but 
all  any  way  related  to  him."  Were  there  no  infants  re- 
lated to  him  ?  When  it  is  said  that  "  Jehu  was  executing 
"  judgment  upon  the  house  of  Ahabj'Y^J  Gill  says  that 
this  royal  house  of  Ahab  included  "  Joram  his  son  and 
"  seventy  more  sons."  Strange  if  there  were  no  infants 
among  them  !  When  Nathan  said  to  David,  "  The  Lord 
"  telleth  thee  that  he  will  make  thee  an  house,'\t)  this 
house  prominently  contemplated  an  infant  yet  to  be 
born.  The  very  next  verse  says,  "  I  will  set  up  thy 
"  seed  after  thee,  which  shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bow- 
"  els,  and  I  will  establish  his  kingdom."  From  the  first 
of  these  verses,  Gill  understands  that  God  will  ''  not  only 

(n)  2  Sam.  xxi.  1.  4.  (o)  1  Kings  xiv.  10.  13.  Comp.  xv.  29. 

(/z  )  2  Sam.  xii.  10.  11.  14.       {<j)  Am.  vii.  9. 
Ir)  1  Kgs,  xvi.  11.  12.  (»)  2Clir.  xxii.  8. 

(/)  2  Sam.  vii.  11.  Comp.  12—16. 

Z  z 


(     362     ) 

'^  build  up  his  family  and  make  that  numerous,  [by 
"  giving  him  many  infants,  of  course,]  but  establish  the 
''  house  of  his  kingdom.''  The  next  he  says  "  has  re- 
^^  gard  to  a  future  son  of  his  not  yet  born  ;  not  Absa- 
''  lom  nor  Adonijah,  nor  any  of  the  rest  born  in  Hebron 
'^  were  to  succeed  him  in  the  kingdom,  but  one  as  yet 
'^  unbornJ^  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  this  prophecy 
contemplated  this  unborn  son  as  grown  to  maturity,  and 
fit  to  reign,  before  he  belonged  to  his  father's  royal 
house.  There  is  incontrovertible  evidence  at  hand 
that  he  belonged  to  his  father's  royal  house  the  moment 
that  he  was  born.  This  evidence  is  contained  in  a  pro- 
phecy concerning  one  of  his  royal  successors:  viz. 
*^  Behold,  a  child  shall  be  horn  unto  the  house  of  Da- 
*'^  vid,  Josiah  by  name.^ft^)  But  these  prophecies  con- 
template ultimately  that  King  who  is  the  Root  and  off- 
spring of  David,  whom  Dr.  Gill  considers  as  introduced 
into  the  house  of  David  from  the  moment  of  his  concep- 
tion. The  rapturous  song  of  Zacharias  tells  us  that 
God  '^  hath  raised  up  an  horn  of  salvation  for  us,  in  the 
^'  house  of  his  servant  David. '^(?;)  Gill  says,  ''  In  Da- 
^'  vid's  family,  he  being  now  conceived  by  a  virgin  of 
^'  his  house,  and  who,  in  a  little  time,  would  be  born  in 
^'  Bethlehem  the  city  of  David."  There  is  no  need, 
therefore,  to  go  in  search  of  Lydia's  husband,  or  of  the 
jailer's  wife,  in  order  to  tell  what  sort  of  houses  they 
were,  which  were  baptized  upon  the  faith  of  the  pa- 
rents. 

8.  The  Pontifical  or  Sacerdotal  House,  Eli,  the 
High  Priest,  of  the  house  of  Ithamar,  was  addressed 
as  follows ;  "  Wherefore  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  saith, 
^^  I  said  indeed  that  thy  house  and  the  house  of  thy  fa- 
^'  ther  should  walk  before  me  forever :  but  now  the 
^'  Lord  saith,  Be  it  far  from  me  ;  for  them  that  honour 
*^  me  I  will  honour,  and  they  that  despise  me,  shall  be 


(w)  1  Kgs.  xiii.  2.    To  this  add  1  Chr.  xvii.  25.  2  Sam,  vii.  £7.  I  Kgs, 
xi.  38. 
(v)  Lukei.  69. 


(     363     ) 

^'  lightly  esteemed.  Behold,  the  days  come  that  I  will 
"  cut  off  thine  arm,  and  the  arm  of  thy  father's  house, 
^'  and  there  shall  not  be  an  old  man  in  thine  house.  And 
''  thou  shalt  see  an  enemy  in  my  habitation,  in  all  the 
''  wealth  which  God  shall  give  Israel :  and  there  shall 
^*  not  be  an  old  man  in  thine  house  forever.  And  the 
"  man  of  thine,  whom  I  shall  not  cut  off  from  mine 
"  altar,  shall  be  to  consume  thine  eyes  and  to  grieve 
^*  thine  heart :  and  all  the  increase  of  thine  house  shall 
"  die  in  the  flower  of  their  age.''  (or  "  die  men,")  as 
the  Margin  reads,  (i^j  Here  is  a  numerous  house  with- 
out one  old  man.  As  to  these  young  men,  the  question 
is,  were  they  in  the  flower  of  their  age,  when  they  first 
became  the  increase  of  Eli's  house  ?  If  so,  they  were 
the  only  instance  of  the  kind  since  the  days  of  Adam. 
Instead  of  '^  thine  arm  and  the  arm  of  thy  father's 
'  house/^  the  Septuagint  reads  "  thy  seed  and  the  seed 
*^  of  thy  father's  hoiise,^^  With  this  Dr.  Gill's  Commen* 
tary  agrees :  for  he  says  that  his  arm  means  "  his  child- 
".  reuj  which  are  the  strength  of  a  man,  and  the  sup- 
''  port  of  his  family  :"  as  when  Jacob  calls  Reuben 
"  the  beginning  of  my  strength^'^ix)  the  Septuagint 
calls  him  "  the  beginning  of  my  children  ;"  and  this  he 
was,  the  moment  that  he  was  born.  This  arm  of  Eli's 
house,  therefore,  would  have  embraced  his  infants,  if 
he  had  had  any,  and  did  actually,  as  Dr.  Gill  admits, 
embrace  the  children  of  his  sons,  concerning  which  the 
Dr.  says,  "  The  children  they  left  were  very  young:" 
and  if  the  memorable  Ichabodj  one  of  these  very  young 
children,  who  was  born  just  after  the  death  of  his  father, 
had  been  said  to  join  his  bereaved  mother  in  the  mourn- 
ing of  despair,  it  would  have  no  more  proved  him  an 
adult,  than  the  fact  that  the  jailer's  house  participated 
in  his  joy  of  faith,  proves  them  to  be  adults.  Rachel's 
new  born  son  did  actually  participate  in  his  mothers  an- 
guish, when  she  called  his  name  Benoni,  the  son  of  my 
sorrow  ;  and  it  was  perfectly  consistent  with  the  lan- 

(7y)  1  Sam,  ii.  30—53,  {x)  Gen.  x'ix.  3. 


(     364     ) 

guage  of  the  scriptures  for  his  first  smile  to  be  constru- 
ed into  a  participation  of  his  father's  joy,  when  he  call- 
ed his  name  Benjamin,  the  son  of  my  right  hand. 

9,  The  Patriarchal  House,  In  accounting  for  Da- 
niel's calling  Evilmerodach,  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
when  he  was  really  his  grandson^  Prideaux  remarks 
that  ^^This  is  to  be  understood  in  the  large  sense,  where- 
"  in  any  ancestor  upward  is  often  called  father,  and  any 
''  descendant  downward,  son,  according  to  the  usual 
^'  style  of  Scripture.'^  This  extensive  range  of  family- 
ascent  and  family-descent  is  sometimes  comprehended  in 
the  patriarchal  house.  Pindar,  in  an  address  to  Xeno- 
phon,  calls  him,  and  his  father,  and  grandfather,  "  the 
[oiKOS,]  house,  thrice  victor  in  the  Olympic  games. '^(y) 
Taylor  has  shewn  that  Paul  once  uses  oikos  for  family- 
ascent.  "  If  any  widow  have  children  or  grandchildren, 
[as  my  Opponent  justly  renders  it,]  let  them  learn  first 
to  shew  piety  to  their  own  oikos,  hquse,  and  to  requite 
their  progenitors  ;^^{z)  which  are  their  own  house.  It 
more  generally  means  idiVaWy- descent,  Lycophron  calls 
the  adulterer,  ^^oikophthoron,^  corrupter  of  houses f'' 
and  Ignatius,  writing  to  the  Ephesians,  says  that  "  hoi 
oiKOPHTHouoi,  corrupters  of  houses,  shall  not  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God.'^  Houses  are  evidently  thus  cor- 
rupted by  the  introduction  of  illegitimate  infants :  for,  as 
Taylor,  (from  whom  these  cases  are  borrowed,)  observes, 
the  adulterer  is  "  not  merely  the  seducer  of  wives,  but 
^'  the  corrupter  of  the  blood,  of  the  family-descent,  by 
"  introducing  a  spurious  brood. "(a)  This  is  a  promi- 
nent feature  in  the  definitions  of  a  hoifse,  which  the  same 
author  has  given  us  from  Aristotle  and  Cicero.  'The  for- 
mer says,  "  A  house  is  a  society  connected  together  ac- 
*^  cording  to  the  course  of  nature,  for  long  continu- 
'^  ance.^\h)  To  this  long  continuance  Cicero  adds  the 
relation  of  afilnity,  which  the  Old  Testament  recognizes 
in  the  daughters-in-law  of  the  house  of  Noah,  and  which 

(v)  2(i  edition  of  Taylor's  Facts  and  Evidences,  p.  33. 

(t)  1  Tim.  V.  4.  (a)  Taylor's  2d  Ed.  of  Facts  &  Evid.  p.  ZX 

{h)  Facts  and  Evid.  1st  Ed.  p.  iSl. 


(     365     ) 

the  New  Testament  recognizes  in  the  house  divided 
against  itself,  the  daughter-in-law  against  her  mother- in- 
law.(c)  There  is  also  a  very  express  scriptural  recog- 
nition of  Aristotle's  idea  of  long  continvancey  in  one  of 
David's  prayers.  ^^  Therefore  now  let  it  please  thee  to 
"  bless  the  house  of  thy  servant,  that  it  may  continue  for 
"  ever  before  thee :  for  thou,  O  Lord  God,  hast  spoken 
'^  it,  and  with  thy  blessing  let  the  house  of  thy  servant 
''  be  blessed  for  ever.'^(6/)  The  long  continuance  of 
David's  house  is  implied  even  in  the  threat,  '^  Now, 
therefore,  the  sword  shall  never  depart  from  thy 
house,^\e)  Dr.  Gill  says  that  this  was  fulfilled  in  the 
slaughter  of  "  his  posterity,  through  their  wars  with  the 
children  of  Israel  and  other  nations."  It  has  already 
been  shewn,  under  a  former  particular,  that  his  posterity 
numbered  many  infants  which  were  devoured  by  the 
sword.  These  infants,  then,  belonged  to  his  house.  Ac- 
cording to  this  plan,  of  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fa- 
thers upon  the  children,  to  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion of  them  that  hate  him,(/)  he  punished  the  posterity 
of  polluted  Ham,  in  the  line  of  Canaan. (^)  Not  only  so, 
but  with  the  pious  patriarchs,  God  blessed  their  houses 
also;  as  may  be  seen  in  ^"^the  house  of  Jacob,  which 
came  into  Egypt.''(A)  This  house  consisted  of  seventy 
souls,  including  many  infa7its.  To  his  father,  Joseph 
says,  "  There  will  I  nourish  thee,  (for  yet  there  are  five 
years  of  famine,)  lest  thou,  and  thy  household,  and  all 
that  thou  hast,  come  to  poverty."(e)  Here  the  Septua- 
gint  does  not  use  the  word  oikos,  but  other  Greek  Trans- 
lators do,  as  Trommius  informs  us,  and  Gill  informs  us 
that  his  household  here  means  ^^  his  whole  posterity ;" 
which  certainly  embraces  infants.  Upwards  of  seventy 
years  after  this,  the  Patriarch  Ephraim,  the  son  of  Jo- 
seph, lost  a  son  and  three  grandsons  by  the  sword  of  cer- 
tain plunderers  from  Gath;  subsequent  to  which  mourn- 
ful loss,  his  wife  ''  bare  a  son,  and  he  called  his  name 

(c)  Facts  and  Evid.  2nd  Ed.  p.  34. 

[d)  2  Sam.  vii.  29.  (f )  2  Sam.  xii.  10, 
(/)  Ex.  XX.  5.                        iff)  Gen.  ix.  22--25. 
(A)  Gen.  xlvi.  27.  51.             (i)  Gen.  xlv.  11, 


(     366     ) 

Beriah,  because  it  went  evil  with  his  hoiiseJ'ij)  Gill 
observes  that  this  infant  '^  in  some  measure  made  up  for 
the  loss  he  had  sustained,"  in  his  house :  then  of  course 
this  child  must  belong  to  his  house,  as  soon  as  he  comes 
into  the  world.  So^  as  soon  as  Joseph  the  reputed  father 
of  Jesus  was  born,  he  ''  was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of 
"  David. "(A:)  But  Christ  was  said  to  be  ''  in  the  house 
of  his  servant  David/'(/)  before  he  was  born ;  ^^  He 
being  now  conceived  by  a  virgin  of  his  house,^'  as  Dr. 
Gill  observes. 

10.  The  Domestic  House.  Here  we  find  the  house- 
holds of  Lydia  and  the  jailer,  which  have  been  the  in- 
nocent occasion  of  so  much  dispute.  Along  with  these, 
Dr.  Gill  reckons  the  house  of  Zaccheus,  concerning 
which  our  Saviour  says,  "  This  day  is  salvation  come 
to  this  house  :^\m)  [that  is,  ^^  to  the  inhabitants  of 
this  house  ;"  as  Dr.  Gill  informs  us  the  Arabic  Version 
renders  it.]  On  this  passage  the  Dr.  says,  '^  Some- 
*'  times  the  Lord  takes  one  of  a  city,  and  two  of  a  fami- 
'^  ly  ;  and  sometimes  whole  families,  as  Lydia's  and  the 
"  jailer's,  and  here  Zaccheus's,  as  seems  probable.''  In 
this  controversy,  it  is  of  no  great  importance  whether, 
on  the  one  hand,  we  lose  Stephanas,  upon  the  authority 
of  some  Greek  writers, (yz)  who  believe  him  to  be  the 
jailer,  removed  from  Philippi  to  Corinth ;  or  whether, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  gain  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus, 
upon  the  authority  of  some  Greek  manuscripts  and  the 
Vulgate,  which  associate  these  names  and  their  houses 
with  "  the  house  of  Stephanas,"  as  the  Apostle's  "  first 
fruits  of  Achaia."(o)  In  the  same  church,  the  Apostle 
baptized  Crispus  and  Gaius,(/^)  without  telling  us  whe- 
ther they  baptized  their  households,  or  whether  they 
had  any  or  not.  With  respect  to  Crispus  the  defect  is 
made  up  by  another  writer,  who  informs  us  that  he  had 
a  large  household,[q)    But  even  then  it  is  not  mentioned 


j)  iChr.  vii.  23.  (c.  21.  22.) 

k)  Luke  ii.  4.    The  same  may  be  said  of  Mary.  Luke  i.  27. 

/)  Luke  i.  69.  (m)  Luke  xix.  9. 

n)  Asserted  by  Dr.  Gill  on  1  Cor,  i,  16. 

0)  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.  Sc  Gill  there,  {fi)  1  Cor.  i.  14. 

q)  Acts  xviii,  8. 


(     367     ) 

that  the  household  was  baptized.  Of  this,  however, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  since  there  is  the  same  reason  for 
baptizing  his  house  that  there  is  for  baptizing  the  jailer's; 
and  the  baptism  of  "•  many  of  the  Corinthians''  is  men- 
tioned in  the  very  same  sentence.  There  is  reason  to 
believe  that  these  "  Many"  were  composed  of  whole 
houses  and  separate  individuals;  and  that  this  was  not 
applicable  to  Corinth  only,  but  that  this  gospel  ordinance 
followed  the  gospel  itself,  which,  as  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  says,  "  Spread  itself  over  the  whole  world,  con- 
^'  verting  equally  Greeks  and  Barbarians,  in  every  nation 
^'  and  village,  and  in  all  cities,  whole  houses  and  sepa- 
^'  rate  individuals. "(r) 

To  prove  that  the  Apostles  practised  household  bap- 
tism, it  is  not  necessary  to  find  a  multiplicity  of  instances 
in  scripture.  If  many  cases  of  household  baptism  be  ne- 
cessary to  prove  apostolical  practice,  then  many  cases  of 
female  communion  are  as  necessary  to  prove  apostolical 
practice.  But  if  such  evidence  be  requisite,  we  shall 
not  only  have  to  relinquish  female  communion,  as  an 
apostolical  practice,  but  w^e  must  give  up  even  male 
communion  also,  since  there  are  not  as  many  recorded 
cases  of  male  communion  as  there  are  of  household  bap- 
tism. 

Neither  is  it  necessary  to  have  a  minute  detail  of 
names  and  ages  in  a  household,  to  ascertain  the  presence 
of  infants,  since  this  is  implied  in  the  very  word  itself. 
On  this  subject  my  Opponent  reasons  as  follows,  viz. 
^'  So  long  as  the  word  famili/,  which  you  say  is  the  mean- 
^^  ing  of  oiKOS,  frequently  denotes  all  that  live  under 
^'  one  father,  mother,  master,  or  mistress,  whether  in- 
^^  fants  or  adults,  so  long  it  remains  to  be  determined, 
^^  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  who  are  the  con- 
*^  stituents  or  members  of  the  family  ;  and  thus  after  all 
^^  your  boasted  discovery,  you  have  to  confess  your- 
^^  selves  to  be  just  where  you  were;  unable  to  prove 
^^  that  there  was  an  infant  in  any  house,  oikta,  or  fa?nili/ 

(r)  Taylor's  2nd  Edit,  p.  116. 


(     368     ) 

^^  that  was  baptized. 'Y*)  .The  amount  of  this  reasoning 
of  my  Anabaptist  Opponent^  is  as  follows  ;  A  house  or 
family  embraces  adults  and  infants:  Tfierefore,  when 
we  are  told  that  a  house  or  family  is  baptized,  we  are  to 
understand  that  there  are  no  infants  in  it,  unless  there 
is  additional  proof  of  this  fact!  !  But  if  a  house  em- 
brace adults  and  infants  alike,  why  is  additional  proof 
required  for  one,  and  not  for  the  other  ?  To  be  consistent, 
he  ought  to  reason  as  follows  ;  A  house  or  family  in- 
cludes adults  and  infants  :  Therefore,  when  we  are  told, 
even  by  infallible  testimony,  that  a  house  or  family  is 
baptized,  this  is  no  proof  that  there  was  a  baptism  of 
either  adults  or  infants,  unless  there  is  additional  evi- 
dence of  one  or  the  other,  or  both  !  !  So  in  relation  to 
the  other  ordinance.  The  word  disciples  embraces 
males  and  females :  Therefore,  when  we  are  told  that 
disciples  communed,  we  are  not  to  understand  that  fe- 
males communed,  or  males  either,  without  additional 
evidence  !  ! 

To  shew  the  absurdity  of  this,  let  us  see  how  it  will 
aifectwhat  Dr.  Judson,  the  Baptist  missionary  to  India, 
has  said  about  houses,  in  his  journal  of  Nov.  11,  1822. 
It  is  as  follows,  viz.  "  Understand  that,  according  to 
^^  the  public  registers,  40,000  houses  have  removed  from 
^^  Ah-mah-rah-pore  to  Ava  the  new  capital,  and  that 
^'  30,000  remain.  The  Burmans  reckon  ten  persons, 
^^  great  and  small,  to  a  house,  which  gives  700,000,  for 
"  the  whole  population  of  the  metropolis  of  Burmah.''(/) 
Now  I  ask,  Is  any  additional  proof  necessary  to  shew 
that  half  of  the  persons  included  in  these  70,000  houses 
were  of  the  age  to  which  infant  baptism  is  administered. 
But  suppose  that  they  had  all  renounced  Paganism  and 
embraced  Judaism  ;  and  Dr.  Judson  had  told  us  that 
70,000  houses  were  circumcised  :  would  this  alter  the 
case?  Suppose   again,  that  this  Baptist  missionary  had 

proselyted  them  all  to  Christianity,  and  had  told  us  that 

t 

U')  Spurious  Deb.  with  me.  p.  282.  Note. 
(If)  Missionary  Herald,  Vol.  19.  p.  392. 


(     369     ) 

70,000  houses;  reckoning  '^  ten  persons,  great  and  small, 
to  a  house,'^  had  been  baptized  by  his  hands  ;  could  any- 
one doubt  that  he  had  turned  Pedobaptist  again?  But  the 
very  •^circumstances  of  the  case/^  which  my  Opponent 
demands,  are  found  here,  in  the  Christianizing  of  Jews, 
who  are  accustomed  to  introducing  infants  into  the 
church.  Yet  these  circumstances  were  found  in  the 
house  ho  Id-hdiptism  of  the  New  Testament,  which,  as 
we  have  shewn,  w^as  taken  from  the  ^ow^eAo/^- circumci- 
sion of  the  Jews. 

When  Dr.  Judson  found  the  jails  of  modern  Asia  fur- 
nished with  tanks  of  water,  he  gave  it  instead  of  proof 
that  the  jailer  of  ancient  Europe  was  immersed.  It 
would  be  much  more  reasonable  for  him  to  have  said 
that  as  the  modern  Asiatics  "  reckon  ten  persons,  great 
^'  and  small,  to  a  house/^  therefore  the  baptized  houses 
of  the  ancient  Asiatics   included  infants. 

We  do  not,  however,  depend  upon  modern  usage,  for 
the  doctrine  that  a  household  includes  infants.  This 
appears  to  have  been  the  general  understanding,  at  least 
as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Boaz,  the  great-grand- father 
of  David.  When  this  pious  man  called  upon  his  coun- 
trymen to  attest  his  marriage  with  Ruth,  ^^  All  the  peo- 
^^  pie  that  were  in  the  gate,  and  the  elders,  said.  We 
^^  are  witnesses.  The  Lord  make  the  woman  that  is 
''  come  into  thine  house  like  Rachel  and  like  Leah, 
"  which  two  did  build  the  house  of  Israel ;  and  do  thou 
^^  worthily  in  Ephratah,  and  be  famous  in  Beth-lehem  : 
"  and  let  thy  house  be  as  the  house  of  Pharez,  whom 
^^  Tamar  bare  unto  Judah,  of  the  seed  which  the  Lord 
^^  shall  give  thee  of  this  young  woman.  So  Boaz  took 
*^  Ruthj  and  she  was  his  wife :  and  when  he  went  in 
^*  unto  her,  the  Lord  gave  her  conception,  and  she  bare 
'^  a  son."(i^)  How  did  Rachel  and  Leah  build  the  house 
of  Israel  ?  By  giving  him  infants.  What  sort  of  a  house 
was  the  house  of  Pharez  ?   One  which  rapidly  increased 


(m)  Ruth  iv.  11—13. 

3  A 


(     370     ) 

by  the  accession  of  numerous  infants.  Of  what  materials 
did  these  friends  and  witnesses  wish  the  house  of  Boaz 
built^  that  it  might  resemble  that  of  Pharez?  ^'  Of  the 
seed,  [the  infant  offspring,]  which  the  Lord  shall  give 
thee  of  this  young  woman."  And  how  was  his  house 
built  in  fact?  '^  She  bare  a  son.*'  And,  as  Taylor  has 
already  reminded  us,  this  passage  shews,  that  the  mean- 
ing here  attached  to  the  word  house,  was  familiar  to  "  all 
the  people  that  were  in  the  gate,  and  the  elders."  To 
consider  the  word  house,  as  embracing  infants,  was  then 
common  to  civil  courts  and  ordinary  conversation :  and 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  refer  to  their  ancestors, 
they  evidently  considered  this  the  meaning  attached  to 
the  word,  by  the  earliest  patriarchs,  and  in  the  very  first 
book  of  Moses.  To  this  very  passage  of  Ruth,  Dr.  Gill 
refers,  in  illustration  of  our  Marginal  rendering  of  Gen. 
xvi.  2,  where  Sarai,  after  giving  her  handmaid  to  Abram, 
says,  '^  It  may  be  that  I  may  be  builded  by  her.''  On 
this  text  the  Doctor  says,  "  For  women,  by  bearing  chil- 
'^  dren,  build  up  an  house,  see  Ruth  iv.  1 1,  hence  a 
''  son,  in  Hebrew,  is  called  ben,  from  banah,  to  build.^^ 
Other  passages  of  scripture  giving  it  the  same  signifi- 
cation, are  numerous.  "  God  setteth  the  solitary  in  a 
house  ;^\v)  that  is,  in  a  family  of  children.  "  He  maketh 
the  barren  woman  to  dwell  in  an  house,  and  to  be  a  joy- 
ful mother  of  children .''\w)  As  Achan  and  his  family 
perished  together  ',[x)  and  as  the  sons  of  Zedekiah  were 
slain  before  his  eyes  ;(y)  so  it  is  said  of  Korah  and  his 
company,  ''*  And  the  earth  opened  her  mouth,  and  swal- 
lowed them  up,  and  their  houses,  and  all  the  men  that 
pertained  unto  Korah,  and  all  their  goods. "(z)  Who 
these  houses  are,  is  explained  in  the  context,  "  And 
Dathan  and  Abiram  came  out,  and  stood  in  the  door 
of  their  tents,  and  their  wives,  and  their  sons,  and 
their  little  children,   parvulis   suis,"  as  Junius  and 


{v)  Ps.  Ixviii.  6.  Hcbr.  LXX.  &  Eng;.  Marg. 
w)  Ps.  cxiii.  9.  Hbr.  LXX.  &  Eng.  Mai-g. 
c)  Josh.  viL  24.      {y)  Jer.  xxxix.  6.      (z)  Num.  xvi,  32.  (comp.  27. ) 


(     371     ) 

Tremellius  render  it.  Dr.  Gill  thinks  it  possible  that 
houses  here  may  mean  tents.  Not  so  the  Septuagint : 
for,  in  the  immediately  preceding  context,  they  inter- 
polate oiKOUs  and  skenas,  houses  and  tents. [a)  There 
is  an  instance  now  before  me,  in  which  both  these  words 
include  the  family.  '^  And  thou  shalt  know  that  thy 
tabernacle  shall  be  in  peace ;  and  thou  shalt  visit  thy 
habitation^  and  shalt  not  sin. "(6)  The  word  tabernacle 
here,  which  Dr.  Gill  says,  "  includes  all  that  dwell  in 
his  houscj  his  family,'^  is  oikos,  house,  in  the  Septuagint. 
The  word  habitation  "  including  his  family  also,''  as 
Dr.  Gill  says,  is  Skene,  tent^  in  the  Septuagint. 

The  very  great  frequency  with  which  infants  are  con- 
nected with  their  parents  in  the  domestic  house  of  the 
scriptures,  looks  so  much  like  the  spirit  of  Pedobaptism, 
that  Dr.  Gill  sometimes  makes  a  fruitless  attempt  to 
escape  this  consequence.  The  following  text  is  an  ex- 
ample. "  The  wicked  are  overthrown  and  are  not ; 
but  the  house  of  the  righteous  shall  stand. ''(c)  The 
Doctor  denies  that  house  here  means  "  family ^  as  the 
''  generality  of  interpreters,  for  \he  family  of  the  righte- 
"  ous  may  be  extinct,  and  especially  not  continue  as 
"  righteous."  The  same  reason  might  be  given  for 
''  contradicting  the  inspired  declaration  of  Peter,  "  The 
promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children. '^(d)  But  Dr. 
Gill  cannot  continue  such  a  strain  uniformly.  When  So- 
lomon says,  '^  Through  wisdom  is  an  house  builded  ;  and 
by  understanding  it  is  established ;"  the  Doctor's  Com- 
mentary says,  "  The  prosperity  of  a  man's  family  is 
continued  and  secured  by  his  prudent  conduct.*' 

In  case  of  Esther's  refusal  to  act  for  the  Jews,  Mor- 
decai's  denunciation  was  ''  Thou  and  thy  father's  house 
shall  be  destroyed."(e)  When  it  is  said  in  Job,  ^^  The 
increase  of  his  house  shall  depart,"(/)  Gill  says,  ^^  Either 
his  children  or  his  substance."  Compare  this  with  the 
prophecy,  "  Then  will  I  build  you,  and  not  pull  you 


(a)  Verse  30.  {b)  Job  v.  24.  (c)  Prov.  xii.  7. 

{(l)  Acts  ii.  39.  {e)  Esth.  iv.  14,  (/)  Job  xx.  28. 


(     372     ) 

down  ;''(^)  which,  Gill  says,  is  a  promise  of  *^  increase 
in  nwnberSj  wealth  and  riches.'^  It  is  by  the  birth  of 
children  that  a  house  is  built  up  or  increased  in  numbers. 
These  are  also  embraced  in  the  promise  of  Saul  to  the 
man  who  should  slay  Goliah ;  that  he  would  "  make  his 
father's  house  free  in  Israel. ''(A)  Also,  in  the  prayer 
which  our  Saviour  directed  the  apostles  to  make, 
''  Peace  be  to  this  house.^\i) 

In  the  following  half  dozen  instances,  Gill  considers 
the  word  house  as  equivalent  tofarnili/^  and  neither  he 
nor  any  other  will  probably  deny  that  infants  are  in- 
cluded. The  people  are  required  to  support  the  priest, 
^'  that  the  blessing  may  rest  in  thine  house."(o)  ''  And 
''  the  Lord  blessed  Obed-edom  and  all  his  household, ""'{p) 
^'  And  thou  shalt  rejoice  in  every  good  thing  which  the 
^'  Lord  thy  God  hath  given  unto  thee  and  unto  thine 
'^  house,^\q)  "  Therefore  now  let  it  please  thee  to  bless 
^^  the  house  of  thy  servant."  "  And  with  thy  blessing 
^^  let  the  house  of  thy  servant  be  blessed  for  ever.'Xr) 
^^  And  all  the  people  departed  every  man  to  his  house, 
^^  and  David  returned  to  bless  his  house'"{s)  "  Woe  to 
^'  him  that  coveteth  an  evil  covetousness  to  his 
^^  housey(t) 

When  it  is  said  again,  '*  Then  David  returned  to 
^^  bless  his  household.^\u)  Gill  says,  '^  his  wife,  child- 
"  ren  and  servants.'^  When  it  is  said  that  "  Esau  took 
'^  his  wives,  and  his  sons,  and  his  daughters,  and  all  the 
<^  persons  of  his  housejHv)  Gill  interprets,  "  his  men- 
^'  servants  and  maid-servants  that  were  horn  in  his  house, 
"  or  bought  with  his  money.''  When  Jacob  "  had  a 
*^  large  family  to  provide  for,"  as  Gill  observes,  then 
he  said  to  Laban,  ''  When  shall  I  provide  for  mine  own 
^^  house  also?"(t(;)  When  the  prophet  tells  us  that  wick- 


er) Jer.  xlii.  10.  {h)  1  Sam.  xvii.  25. 

(j)  Luke  X.  5.  (o)  Ez.  xliv,  SO. 

(fi  )  2  Sam.  vi.  11.  (y)  Deut.  xxvi.  11. 

(r)  2  Sam.  \\\.  29.  («)  1  Chr.  xvi.  43. 

(/)  Habb.  ii.  9.  (w)  2  Sam.  vi.  20, 

{v)  Oen.  xxxvi,  6,  (iv)  Gen,  xxx,  .^0. 


I 


(     373     ) 

ed  governours  ^^  oppress  a  man  and  his  house,*\x)  Dr. 
Gill  interprets  that  they  "  distressed  a  man  and  \iis  family 
for  the  present,  and  his  posterity  after  him.  My  Op- 
ponent's New  Testament  reads,  "  By  intestine  broils 
''  any  kingdom  may  be  desolated,  one  family  {house) 
"  falling  after  another  \Jiouse.~y\y)  If  these  farnilits 
had  no  infants,  they  would  come  to  desolation  without 
intestine  broils.  No  doubt  my  Opponent  will  admit  that 
they  may  generally  have  infants,  as  there  is  nothing  said 
about  their  baptism.  But  suppose  the  text  to  read  in 
this  way  ;  '^  By  the  Spirit  and  ordinances  of  God,  any 
"  kingdom  may  be  Christianized,  qw^  family  being  bap- 
"  tized  after  another.^^  How  sadly  that  would  alter  the 
case.  All  the  infants  in  the  realm  would  immediately 
disappear,  like  those  of  Lydia,  Stephanas,  and  the  jail- 
er ;  and  the  Moloch  of  Anabaptism  would  make  it  as 
desolate  in  a  moment,  as  intestine  broils  could  make  it 
in  many  years.  If,  after  this  devastation,  more  general 
than  that  of  Pharaoh  or  Herod  ,  if  while  every  subject 
was  mourning,  like  Ephraim,  that  "  it  went  evil  with  his 
''  hou8e^^\z)  Providence  should  give  to  each  a  Beriah^ 
as  he  did  to  that  venerable  Patriarch,  then  it  may  be 
said  of  this  infant  son  in  every  family,  as  Dr.  Gill  said  of 
Beriah  the  son  of  Ephraim,  that  he  "  in  some  measure 
*^  made  up  for  the  loss  he  had  sustained"  in  his  house. 

When  the  wise  man  says,  "  Every  wise  woman  build- 
''  eth  her  house,^'(a)  Gill  understands  that  she  does  it 
not  only  by  her  piety,  prudence,  and  industry  ;  but  "  by 
''  her  fruitfulness,  as  Leah  and  Rachel  built  up  the 
''house  of  Israel."  When  it  is  said,  ^^  She  looketh 
"  well  to  the  wayb  of  her  household i'^ (h)  Gill  considei^s 
it  as  meaning  "her  children  and  servants.''  When  it  is 
said  of  this  wise  woman,  that  "  She  giveth  meat  to  her 
"  household  \"(c)  Gill,  in  spiritualizing  the  passage, 
makes  household  to  include  children  and  babes.  Paql 
says  that  a  bishop  must  be  "  One  that  ruleth  well  his 

(.r)  Mic.  ii.  2.  (j/)  Luke  xi.  17. 

(z)  1  Chr.  vii.  23.  (a)  Prov.  xiv.  1. 

\b)  Prov.  xxxi.  27.  (c)  frov,  .xxxi.  15^ 


(     374     ) 

^^  own  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all 
''  gravity.  For  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own 
"  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God?" 
^^Let  the  deacons  be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling 
"  their  children  and  their  own  houses  well.'Y^J  These 
houses  Gill  considers  as  embracing  "  the  family,  wife, 
''  children  and  servants." 

Sometimes  Moses  directs  the  priests  to  eat  the  sacrifi- 
ces with  their  sons  and  daughters,  all  of  which  are  in- 
fants before  they  are  adults;  and  frequently  he  says, 
^'  Every  one  that  is  clean  in  thy  house  shall  eat  of  it."(/) 
Gill  says,  "  Their  families,  wives,  childreyi,  and  ser- 
"  vants."  While  they  eat  together  God  says,  "  Thou 
^'  shalt  rejoice,  thou,  and  thine  householdy(k)  Accord- 
ing to  Gill,  this  requires  that  they  should  "  eat  their 
'^  food  with  cheerfulness  and  gladness,  making  a  feast  of 
"  it,  and  keeping  it  as  such,  he  and  his  whole  family, 
^'  his  wife  and  children,  or  as  many  as  were  with  him." 
That  the  households  here  meant,  embraced  myriads  of 
infants,  no  one  will  deny.  A  question  might  arise, 
Would  the  number  of  these  infants  be  in  the  least  dimin- 
ished, if,  in  both  passages,  we  were  to  add  the  words, 
^'  believing  in  God,"  which  have  stumbled  so  many,  in 
the  baptism  of  the  jailer's  household  ?  The  addition  of 
the  words  will  not  make  the  least  difference  in  the  sense, 
because  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God  by 
eating  and  rejoicing.  "  Every  one  that  is  clean  in  thy 
^' house  shall  eat  of  it,  [believing  in  God.]"  ^^  Thou 
^'  shalt  rejoice,  thou  and  thine  household  [believing  in 
^^God.]"  If  the  fact,  that  the  command  implies  \h\s 
much,  does  not  exclude  infants,  would  the  expression  of 
the  words  exclude  them?  The  scriptures  condemn  him, 
^'  who  eateth  not  of  faith,"(/y>  They  also  say,  ''  If  any 
''  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat."(/72^  Because 
infants  cannot  believe  or  work,  are  they  to  be  excluded 

(rf)  1  Tim.  iii.  4.  5.  12. 

{j  )  Lev.  X.  14.  Num.  xviii.  11.  13.  31.  Deut.  xv.  20. 
Ik)  Deut.  xiv.  26.  (/)  Rom.  xiv.  23. 

(w)  2  Thess.  iii.  10. 


(     375     ) 

from  eating  ?  But  if  precepts  and  prohibitions  concern- 
ing faith  do  not  extend  to  infants,  as  far  as  faith  is  con- 
cerned, why  may  not  this  hold  true  with  regard  to  nar- 
ratives ? 

Yet  it  is  not  admitted  that  the  narrative  of  the  jailer 
is  encumbered  with  this  difiiculty,  except  with  those  who 
misunderstood  our  translation.  The  jailer  "rejoiced, 
"  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house.^'  This,  it  is  con- 
fessed, affords  some  pretext  for  attributing  faith  to  the 
jailer's  house :  yet  I  could  soon  point  you  to  a  passage 
which  no  one  misunderstands,  and  which  the  collocation 
of  our  Translators  has  made  much  more  liable  to  perver- 
sion. It  is  the  following.  "  For  he  hath  -made  him  to  be 
^'  sin  for  us,  ivho  knew  no  sin,''(n)  Is  it  Christ  or  our- 
selves who  knew  no  sin  ?  To  give  a  correct  answer,  the 
relative,  who  in  our  Translation,  must  not  be  allowed  to 
refer  to  the  last  antecedent,  as  in  common  cases.  My 
Opponent's  favourite  Thomson  of  our  own  country,  has 
placed  the  relative  by  its  proper  antecedent.  ^'  For  he 
^^  hath  made  him  who  knew  no  sin,  a  sin  offering  for  us.^^ 
In  this  he  follows  the  great  body  of  the  European  trans- 
lators,  who  themselves  follow  the  Latin  Vulgate  and  the 
Greek  Original.  "  For  him  who Jf  new  no  sin,  he  hath 
^^  made  sin  (or  a  sin  offering)  for  us.'^  This  is  the  order 
in  which  the  Greek  and  Latin  words  stand,  as  far  as  the 
pronouns  in  question  are  concerned  ;  and  it  seems  strange 
that  our  Translators  should  alter  this  order,  when  it 
could  have  no  other  effect  than  to  obscure  the  sense. 

The  great  difficulty  in  the  narrative  of  the  jailer, 
arises  from  a  similar  misplacing  of  words.  In  this  text, 
De  Sacy,  the  Roman  Catholic  Translator,  has  hit  the 
meaning  more  obviously,  by  more  closely  following  the 
order  of  the  original :  "  Et  il  se  rejouit  avec  toute  sa 
"  maison  croyant  e7i  Dieu :  And  he  rejoiced  with  all 
"  his  house  believing  in  God."  In  this  he  follows  the 
ancient  Latin  Vulgate  "  Et  Isetatus  est  cum  omni  domo 
sua  credens  deo  :  And  he  rejoiced  with  all  his  house  be- 

(n)  2  Cor.  v.  21. 


,     (     376     ) 

lieving  in  God.'^  Such  is  the  construction  of  these  lan- 
guages, as  to  make  the  word,  believing^  applicable  to 
the  jailer  only.  These  translations  strictly  follow  the 
Original  in  arrangement  and  sense.  "s^ac  Tiya-kT^ia^ato 
'^  TiavQixi  TffTttffvxwj  T'lo  Of  Cot"  atid  kc  rejoiced  with  all  his 
house  believing  in  God.^^  The  meaning  of  it  is  evidently 
this,  that  "  He,  believing  in  God,  rejoiced  with  all  his 
*•  house. ^^  The  Apostle  commanded  him  to  believe,  and 
promised  that  he  and  his  house  should  be  saved.  Ac- 
cordingly he  did  believe,  "  and  was  baptized,  he  and 
"  all  his  straightway.^^  And  it  was  no  more  difficult  for 
his  infant  household  to  catch  the  infection  of  his  joy,  than 
for  the  children  of  the  Jewish  priests  to  rejoice  with 
them  as  mentioned  above,  on  the  text,  "  Thou  shalt  re- 
^^  joice,  thou  and  thine  household^ 

But  if  the  sacred  writer  had  expressly  said  that  the 
converted  jailer  had  a  believiyig  household,  or  "faithful 
children^^^  as  Paul  requires  that  bishops  or  elders  should 
have,  it  would  have  been  no  certain  evidence  that 
these  infants  were  converted.  Whether  I  can  give  you 
a  satisfactory  reason  for  this  or  not,  I  shall  endeavour  to 
support  the  position.  The  Apostle  says,  ^^If  any  be 
blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  \\2i\m^  faith fulchi I d- 
ren,'^\e)  then  they  may  be  bishops  or  elders.  Now  if 
these  faithfuls  are  intelligent  converts j  then  converted 
children  are  a  necessary  qualification  for  the  ministerial 
office  ;  and  that  man  who  has  an  infant  incapable  of  faith, 
is  not  fit  for  this  office.  This  is  too  absurd.  Dr.  Gill, 
therefore,  says,  "  By  faithful  children  cannot  be  meant 
"  converted  ones,  or  true  believers  in  Christ;  for  it  is  not 
"  m  the  power  of  men  to  make  their  children  such  ;  and 
"  their  not  being  so  can  never  be  an  objection  to  their 
''  being  elders,  if  otherwise  qualified.  At  most,  the 
"  phrase  can  only  intend,  that  they  should  be  brought 
"  up  in  the  faith,  in  the  principles,  doctrines,  and  ways 
•'  of  Christianity,  or  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 
"  the  Lord.''     The  Doctor's  "Jit  most,'^  though  a  lit- 

(<r)  Tit.  i.  6. 


(     377     ) 

tie  sliort  of  the  mark,  is  much  better  than  an  interpre- 
tation which  he  had  offered  a  few  lines  before.  There 
he  says  that  these  faithful  children  meant  "  Legitimate 
ones,  born  in  lawful  wedlock  ;'^  and  adds,  that  it  is,  ''  in 
the  same  sense  as  such  are  called  godly  and  holy,  in  Mai. 
ii.  15.  1  Cor.  vii.  14.^^  In  the  second  Point  of  the  fifth 
Proposition  of  my  first  Argument,  it  was  shewn  that  the 
word  holy^  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  did  not  mean  legitimate  ; 
and  you  were  reminded  that  the  Baptists  of  the  present 
day  are  inclined  to  relinquish  this  interpretation.  We 
need  not  occupy  your  time,  in  refuting  the  notion  that 
faithful  means  legitimate^  since  neither  Doctor  Gill,  nor, 
as  far  as  I  know,  any  other  human  being,  has  ever  at- 
tempted to  prove  it.  There  is  no  more  evidence  that 
the  legitimacy  of  the  elder's  children  is  here  intended, 
than  there  is,  that  the  jailer  and  his  children  rejoiced  in 
their  legitimacy.  But  the  Doctor  has  given  us  a  part 
of  the  truth,  when  he  says  that  these  faithfuls  are  such 
as  "  should  be  brought  up  in  the  faith,  in  the  princi- 
ples, doctrines,  and  ways  of  Christianity,  or  in  the  nur- 
ture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.''  This  is  admitting, 
that,  according  to  Scripture,  infants  may  be  called  faith- 
fuls, because  their  parents  are  bound  to  binng  them  up 
in  the  faith.  As  parents  formally  recognize  this  obliga- 
tion, in  the  baptism  of  their  children,  why  not  say  at 
once,  that  unconscious  infants  may  be  called  faithfuls^ 
when  they  are  baptized?  This  would  be  the  whole  truth, 
as  it  was  held  by  the  ancient  church,  unsophisticated  by 
modern  Anabaptism.  ^'  Theodoret,  Oecumenius,  Chry- 
sostom,  Theophylact,  and  all  the  Greek  Scholiasts,"  as 
reported  by  Taylor,  call  certain  New  Testament  idimi- 
liGS  ^' Faithfuls/'  not  because  they  were  all  believers,. 
or  capable  of  believing,  but  because  they  were  "  bap- 
tized families, ''\f)  Augustin,  as  reported  by  Wall, 
tells  Boniface,  that  "  An  infant,  though  he  be  not  yet 
"  constituted  a  faithful,  by  \haX  faith  which  consists  in 
^'  the  will  of  believei^s ;  is  yet  [constituted  a  faithful,'^ 

(/)  Baptists  Self-conviptea.  p,  39. 

3  B 


(     378     ) 

^^  by  the  mcramtnt  of  that  faith :  for  as  he  is  said  to  be- 
"  lieve,  so  he  is  called  a  faithful,  not  from  his  having 
^'  the  thing  itself  in  his  mind,  but  from  his  receiving  the 
"  sacrament  of  it.''(^)  According  to  Dr.  Gill,  an  in- 
fant may  be  called  a  faithful  in  the  Scriptures,  because 
he  should  be  brought  up  in  the  faith  ;  but,  according  to 
the  ancient  church,  an  infant  is  called  a  faithfuh  be- 
cause he  receives  the  sacrament  of  faith,  in  baptism. 
Admitting,  then,  that  the  jailer's  household  is  said  to  be- 
lieve,  (which  is  not  the  fact,)  still  these  interpretations 
would  place  them  where  they  ought  to  be. 

In  the  case  of  Lydia,(A)  there  is  nothing  said  about 
any  one  htm^  faithful  except  herself.  ^^If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my 
house,  and  abide  there. ^'  This  would  be  a  strange  invi- 
tation for  one  to  give,  who  had  not  a  settled  abode  there 
herself,  as  some  insinuate,  but  was  only  a  travelling  ad- 
venturer. That  it  was  her  fixed  residence,  appears, 
from  her  occupation  in  a  wealthy  line  of  business,  and 
from  her  being  able  to  entertain  four  missionaries  for  an 
indefinite  time.  That  there  were  four  in  company,  is 
plain  from  the  context.  The  beginning  of  the  chapter 
informs  us,  that  Paul  found  Timothy  at  Lystra,  and  that 
he  took  him  on  this  expedition.  In  the  very  text  which 
records  the  baptism,  Luke,  the  author  of  the  narrative, 
associates  himself  with  them,  and  in  the  19th  verse,  Si- 
las is  placed  in  the  same  company.  Of  these  four  per- 
sons, only  two,  Paul  and  Silas,  were  dragged  to  pri- 
son ;(/)  leaving  the  other  two,  Timothy  and  Luke,  still 
in  the  house  of  Lydia;  whither  the  prisoners  returned 
to  comfort,  not  to  baptize  them,  as  soon  as  they  obtained 
their  liberty.  ^^  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and 
entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia :  and  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them  and  depart- 
ed ;"(/)  leaving  them,  as  is  thought,  still  in  the  house  of 
Lydia,  to  organize  and  nourish  the  Philippian  church. 

{g)  Wall's  Hist,  of  Bap.  Book  1.  Chap.  15.  Sect,  4.  Ruhsect.  4. 
(/;)  Act»  xvi,  (J)  Verses  19.  25.  29.  {j)  Verse  40. 


(     379     ) 

But  although  Lydia  was  pleased  with  the  company  of 
these  brethren,  the  Baptists  appear  to  wish  that  they  had 
sought  other  quarters.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  Timo- 
thy and  Luke  were  the  household  of  Lydia,  which  Paul 
baptized :  and  yet  they  try  to  believe  that  the  household 
which  was  baptized,  and  the  brethren  who  were  com- 
forted, were  the  same  persons ;  and  adults,  of  course. 
They,  therefore,  wish  you  to  believe  that  Lydia's  ser- 
vants and  grown  children  were  her  household,  and  that 
her  grown  children  and  servants  and  other  adult  con- 
verts were  the  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Silas  comforted. 
This,  however,  is  conjecture,  without  evidence,  and 
against  evidence.  It  is  without  evidence,  because  this 
adult  assembly  of  children,  servants,  and  other  Philip- 
pian  converts  at  Lydia's  house,  is  no  where  recorded  nor 
hinted  at,  except  in  uninspired  conjectures,  and  those, 
it  appears,  of  a  modern  date.  It  is  against  evidence  ; 
because  the  inspired  record  furnishes  us  with  the  names 
of  the  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Silas  comforted  at  Ly- 
dia's  house,  while  the  whole  tenor  of  the  narrative  marks 
the  absence  of  adults  in  her  baptized  household.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  after  they  had  been  for  some  time  un- 
der the  influence  of  Christian  prayers,  instruction,  and 
example,  this  household  became  as  worthy  of  notice,  as 
that  of  Stephanas,  which,  though  baptized  on  the  fa- 
ther's profession,  was  afterwards  commended  for  minis- 
tering to  the  saints,  according  to  their  age,  ability,  and 
opportunity.  Much  more  would  this  commendation 
have  been  deserved  and  received,  if,  instead  of  being 
promising  children,  Lydia's  household  had  consisted  of 
converted  adults.  If  such  had  been  the  case,  how  natu- 
ral would  it  have  been,  for  the  historian  to  tell  us  that 
Lydia's  household,  as  well  as  herself,  resorted  to  the  sea 
shore  to  worship  ;  that  the  Lord  opened  their  hearts  as 
well  as  hers  ;  that  they,  as  well  as  she,  attended  to  the 
things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul ;  that  they,  as  well  as 
she,  were  faithful  to  the  Lord  ;  and  that  for  this  reason, 
they  joined  her  in  beseeching,  and  aided  her  in  constrain- 
ing Paul  and  his  companions  to  enter  their  common  resi- 


(     380     ) 

dence.  How  different  the  account  which  the  sacred 
writer  has  given  !  If  it  were  not  for  baptism,  we  should 
never  have  known  that  she  had  a  household.  They  are 
never  once  mentioned,  except  in  receiving  this  ordi- 
nance with  her.  It  is  Lydia  alone  who  resorts  to  the 
sea-shore;  Lydia  alone  whose  heart  is  opened;  Lydia 
alone  who  attends  to  PauPs  preaching  ;  Lydia  alone  who 
is  faithful  to  the  Lord;  she  alone  beseeches  the  preachers 
to  visit  her ;  and  she  alone  constrains  them  to  enter  her 
house.  But  "  She  was  baptized^  and  her  householdP^ 
and  thus  proves  household  baptism  to  be  infant  baptism. 

VI. 

HOLOS  OIKOS. 

This  appears  to  be  generally  considered  as  synony- 
mous with  pas  oikos.  Accordingly,  while  Luke  points 
out  the  household  of  Cornelius  by  the  latter  phrase,  Eu- 
sebius  describes  it  by  the  former. (A)  It  will  not  be  de- 
nied that  when  Baasha  "  smote  the  whole  house  of  Jerobo- 
am,^'!/) there  were  some  children  in  that  house.  Nor  will 
this  be  denied  in  another  instance  ;  where  it  is  said  that 
Zimri  ''  slew  the  whole  house  of  Baasha  :''(?w)  where 
Dr.  Gill  says,  that  it  means  "  his  whole  family^  all  the 
children  that  he  had,''  "  that  not  only  his  posterity,  but 
"  all  any  way  related  to  him  should  be  cut  off."  When 
Paul  says,  that  ''  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  his  ivhole 
house,  as  a  servant,"(?2)  Gill  properly  understands  this 
whole  house  to  mean  the  Old  Testament  church,  which 
had  millions  of  infants.  Yet  when  the  same  Apostle  says, 
that  certain  deceivers  of  his  day  "  subvert  whole 
ho7ises,^\o)  the  Baptists  answer,  that  "  whole  houses 
could  not  be  subverted,  unless  they  had  first  been  con- 
vertedf^  and,  taking  it  for  granted  that  no  infant  can  be 
said  to  believe  or  be  converted,  they  would  have  us  con- 

ik^  Acts  X.  2.  See  Taylor's  *♦  Baptists  Self-convicted,"  p.  41,  Note. 
(/)  1  Kings  XV.  29.        (m)  1  Kings  xvi.  11.  12.  where  this  is  twice  said, 
(n)  Hehr.  iiL  2.  5.  where  this  is  twice  said.  (o)  Tit.  i.  11. 


(     381     ) 

elude  that  theseivhole  houses,  suhvertedhy  false  teachers, 
were  composed  of  adult  converts,  instead  of  unbelieving 
and  unconverted  infants.  And  so  they  think  of  the  family 
of  Crispus,  when  it  is  said,  that  "  Crispus,  the  chief 
ruler  of  the  synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord,  with  his 
whole  house.^Kp)  But  to  this  it  is  answered  that  this 
haptism  of  believers,  each  on  his  own  profession,  would 
not  be  called  household  baptism,  but  the  baptism  of  sepa- 
rate individuals. 

This  distinction  was  expressly  recognized  among  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Fathers,  who  certainly  had  some  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Greek  language.  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  says,  "  The 
"  doctrine  of  the  Master  of  Christianity  did  not  remain 
"  confined  to  Judea  only,  as  the  philosophy  of  the  Greeks 
^^  was  confined  to  Greece :  but  it  spread  itself  over  the 
''  whole  world,  converting  equally  Greeks  and  Barba- 
''  rians,  in  every  nation  and  village,  and  in  all  cities, 
''  whole  houses,  and  separate  individuals J'^q)  Here  we 
find  that  separate  individuals,  making  a  personal  pro- 
fession, are  distinguished  from  whole  houses,  embracing 
infants  incapable  of  this  profession  :  yet  both  are  said  to 
be  converted.  How  this  was  understood,  before  the  refine- 
ments of  Anabaptism  perplexed  the  church,  may  be 
learned  from  a  passage  of  Augustine,  which  has,  if  I  mis- 
take not,  been  quoted  in  relation  to  the  jailer's  house- 
hold. His  words  are  as  follows,  viz.  ^'  When  an  infant 
''  that  has  not  yet  the  faculty  o^ faith,  is  said  to  believe, 
''  he  is  said  to  hdive  faith,  because  of  [baptism]  the  sacra- 
"  ment  of  faith;  and  to  be  converted  {co^YEnTEUE  se) 
^^  to  God,  because  of  [baptism]  the  sacrament  ofconver- 
"  sion.^^  And  so  an  infant,  though  he  be  not  yet  consti- 
^^  tuted  a  believer,  by  th?it  faith  which  consists  in  the  will 
^^  of  believers,  yet  he  is,  by  [^baptism^  the  saci'ajneiit  of 
"  that  faith;  for  as  he  is  said  to  believe,  so  he  is  called  a 


(/i)  Acts  xviii,  8.  {q)  oixov^  6%ovi  xat  tSta  txa^ov.      Taylor's 

Facts  and  Evidences^  first  edition,  London  1818,  p.  116,     Second  edition, 
London,  1819,  p,  106. 


(     382     ) 

^^  believer,  not  from  his  having  the  thing  itself  in  his 
^'  mind,  but  from  his  receiving  [baptism]  the  sacrament 
''ofit,''{r) 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  is  giving  human  authority 
in  divine  things.  This  common-sense  understanding 
which  the  church  of  God  has  always  had  of  the  subject, 
has  already  been  shewn  to  be  founded  upon  the  infallible 
word.  Remember  that  children  are  there  declared  to 
have  entered  into  covenant ;  and,  certainly,  faith  and 
conversion  may  be  ascribed  to  them  as  correctly  as  cove- 
nant-making, and  they  are  ascribed  to  them  in  the  same 
sense,  as  the  Fathers,  just  now  quoted,  have  explained. 
If  this  language  may  not  be  used,  concerning  infants,  on 
account  of  their  participation  in  the  external  ordinances 
of  religion,  I  should  like  to  know  what  the  Baptists 
would  make  of  a  passage  of  scripture,  in  which  such  lan- 
guage is  applied  to  irrational  domestic  animals,  on  account 
of  their  participation  in  the  privations  of  a  public  fast. 
The  proclamation  of  the  king  of  Nineveh  says,  "  Let 
^'  man  and  beast  be  covered  with  sackcloth,  and  cry 
'^  mightily  unto  God :  yea,  let  them  be  converted  every 
^'  one  from  his  evil  way,  and  from  the  violence  that  is  in 
their  hands. "(5)  The  word  converted  is  here  used,  be- 
cause, that  is  the  force  of  the  Original  and  of  all  our 
translations,  and  is  expressly  used  by  the  ancient  Latim 
Vulgate,  which  reads  convertatur ;  as  a  modern  French 
Bible  reads,  '^  que  chacun  se  convertisse  f^  the  very 
phraseology  used  by  Augustine,  when  he  said  that  it  is- 
possible  for  infants  "  convertere  se;  to  convert  them- 
selves^ or  he  converted,^  in  a  certain  sense,  by  receiving 
the  sacrament  of  conversion.  These,  then,  belonged  ta 
the  whole  house  of  Crisp  us,  and  the  whole  houses  which 
were  subverted  by  false  teachers. 


(r)  Wall's  History  of  Baptism,  Book  1.  Chap.  15.  Sect.  5.  Subsect.  4. 
(»)  Jon.  ill.  8. 


(      383     ) 

VII. 

PANOIKESIA. 

In  the  use  of  this  word,  Thucidides  speaks  as  follows, 
viz.  '^  In  the  manner  above  mentioned,  were  the  Athe- 
"  nians,  for  a  long  series  of  time,  scattered  about  the 
''  country,  in  towns  and  communities,  at  their  own  dis- 
"  cretion.  And  as  not  only  the  more  ancient,  but  even 
''  the  latter  Athenians,  quite  down  to  the  present  war, 
''  had  still  retained  the  custom  of  dwelling  about  the 
"  country  panoikesia,  with  their  whole  households, ^\t) 
In  this  place,  panoikesia  is  used  to  include  the  millions 
of  children,  which  are  born  to  a  whole  nation,  in  many 
successive  generations. 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  uses  the  same  word  in 
the  same  meaning,  in  the  following  passage,  viz.  '^  And 
*'  very  great  numbers  removed,  panoikesia,  with  their 
"  whole  households^  some  of  whom  returned  when  the 
^'  affairs  of  the  city  were  composed :  but  others  re- 
''  raained  where  they  were. "(2/) 

The  same  writer  says,  ^^  And  by  this  usage  they  forced 
"  those  who  were  unable  to  bear  it,  to  leave  the  country, 
"  with  their  wives  and  children,  and  to  take  refuge  in 
''  the  neighbouring  cities  ....  but  the  greatest  part  also 
"  of  these  had  removed,  panoikesia,  with  their  ivhole 
"  households^  and  leaving  their  [dwelling-]  houses 
"  empty,  lived  in  the  country.''(t;) 

Thucidides  uses  the  word  to  embrace  all  the  infants  of 
Greece  in  general.  He  says,  ''  How  horrible  will  it 
"  seem  for  Platea  to  be  destroyed  by  Lacedaemonians  ! 
^^  — that  your  fathers  inscribed  the  city  on  the  tripod  of 
"  Delphos,  in  justice  to  its  merits  ; — and  that,  to  satisfy 
^'  the  Thebans,  you  expunged  it,  ix  rtavtog  tov  v^wkrivixov 
'^  navoixr^Giaj  from  all  the  whole  household  of  Greece.^\iu) 

(/)  Taylor's  "Baptists  self-convicted. "  p.  49. 

(m)  Do.  p.  48.  {v)  Do.  p.  49.  (w)  Da  p,  49. 


(     384     ) 

From  the  speeches,  which,  for  historic  effect,  arc  put 
into  the  mouths  of  the  seven  celebrated  Maccabean 
brothers,  one  would  suppose  that  none  of  them  were  in- 
fants :  yet  ^'  this  family  appears  by  the  history  to  have 
^^  consisted  of  sons  from  under  the  age  of  eighteen,  to 
^^  about  three  years  old  ;  that  is,  lately  weaned.'^  Gre- 
gory Nazianzen  makes  them  say,  ^'  Let  the  issue  be 
"  fixed  and  unmoveable  as  to  us,  navotxeata  ifrpavoiOtjvaif 
^'  that  the  ivhole  household  obtain  the  crownJ\x) 

VIII. 

PANOIKIOS. 


According  to  Diodorus  Siculus,  the  Carthaginians  in- 
tended, if  urged  by  necessity,  to  emigrate,  in  a  body,  to 
a  certain  island.  His  words  are,  "  For  they  hoped, 
^^  that  being  masters  at  sea,  as  they  then  were,  they 
^^  might  easily,  (unknown  to  the  conquerors,)  transport 
^^  themselves,  panqikious,  with  their  ivhole  households, 
"  into  that  island. ''(y) 

In  another  passage,  the  same  ancient  writer  explains 
panoihioi  by  tsxvi^v  xa^  yvvatxcov  children  and  wives  ;  whom 
certain  Roman  fathers  and  husbands  were  afraid  to  ha- 
zard by  a  protracted  and  disorderly  flight.  They,  there- 
fore, '^  removed,  Ttavoixvoi,,  with  their  whole  households, 
^'  [that  is  their  wives  and  children,  mentioned  above,] 
^^  to  the  neighbouring  towns  and  villages. 'Y^^) 

There  is  similar  evidence  in  Dionysius  of  Halicarnas- 
sus.  He  informs  us  that  the  country  of  the  Antemnates 
and  Caeninenses,  and  the  city  of  Crustumerium  were 
conquered  by  Romulus,  and  reduced  to  the  rank  of  Ro- 
man colonies.  From  the  two  former  he  conveyed  to 
Rome  many  volunteer  emigrants,  ^*  together  with  their 
"  wives  and  childi^en.^'     In  like  manner,  from  the  latter, 

(jt)  Taylor's  "  Baptists  self-convicted. "  p.  50  Taylor,  of  course,  refuses 
to  translate  by  the  word  household, 
(y)  Do.  p.  46.  47,  and  Note.  (z)  Do.  p.  47, 


(     385     ) 

"  several  brave  men  joined  him,  bringing  with  them  con- 
"  siderable  powers,  together  with  Panoikia,  their 
''whole  households  ;^\a)  evidently  embracing  their 
wives  and  children, 

IX 

PAS  OIKOS. 

The  angel  told  Cornelius  to  send  for  Peter,  ''  who 
'.'  shall  tell  thee  words,  whereby  thou,  and  all  thy  house 
"  shall  be  saved. 'Y^/'  The  historian  tells  us  that  this 
was  "  a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God,  with  all 
"  his  houseP(c)  By  this.  Dr.  Gill  understands  that  "  he 
"  brought  up  his  family  in  a  religious  way.'^  From 
this  the  i)r.  certainly  believed  that  Cornelius  had  child- 
ren  ;  and  that  they  were  included  in  all  his  house, 

Rahab's  house  in  which  her  relatives  obtained  safety, 
Dr.  Gill  seems  to  think  a  figure  of  the  church  of  Christ. 
According  to  him,  the  spies  whom  she  entertained, 
"  represent  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  who  are  the 
''  messengers  of  Christ  and  the  churches.'^  When  they 
directed  her  to  bind  the  scarlet  thread  in  the  window, 
Dr.  Gill  considers  them  as  preaching,  by  this  figure,  the 
same  doctrine  taught  in  Mk.  xvi.  16.  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned.'^  Now  let  us  see  whether 
these  typical  ministers  of  the  gospel,  allowed  infants  to 
enter  their  figurative  church,  or  not.  Rahab's  request 
was,  "  Shew  kindness  unto  my  father's  house.^\d)  She 
made  no  express  stipulation  about  infants,  because  they 
were  included  in  the  house;  and  to  exclude  them, 
would  be  as  inconsistent  with  the  religion  of  the  Jews, 
as  it  was  inconsistent  with  her  ow  n  wishes.  According- 
ly, the  spies  said,  ^^Thou  shalt  bring  thy  father,  and  thy 
''  mother,  and  thy  brethren,   and  all  thy  fathers 


(a) 


Taylor's  *•  Baptists  self-convicted,"  p,  47.  48. 

Acts  xi.  14.  (c)  Acts  x.  2.  {d)  Josh.  ii.  12, 

3  C 


(     386     ) 

'^  HOUSEHOLD,  homc  unto  thee.'^(c)  It  probably  never 
entered  into  any  one's  mind,  to  suppose  that  the  children 
of  Rahab's  connexion  were  excluded  from  this  refuge  ; 
and  it  ought  never  to  have  entered  their  mind  to  suppose 
that  the  children  of  believers  were  to  be  excluded  from 
that  visible  church,  of  which  her  house  is  thought  a 
figure  :  especially  as  our  Saviour  has  required  us  to  suf- 
fer them  to  come  to  him,  declaring  that  of  such  is  the 
visible  church. 

X. 

PANOIKI. 

Of  the  jailer  it    is  said,    r^yaT^Uaaato  jtavoixt,  Ttertiisvxui  Tfa 

©fw,  believing  in  God  he  rejoiced  with  all  his  house. 
On  this,  Taylor  says,  ^^  Observe,  he  veioiced  panoiki  ; 
^'  but  he  did  not  believe  panoiki.  Rejoicing  was  an  act 
^'  of  the  person ;  believing  was  an  act  of  the  mind  : 
^'  there  is  no  instance  known  of  panoiki  being  referred 
'^  to  an  act  of  the  jnind."(/)  He  observes  that  as  this 
word  ''  is  referred  to  bodily  action,  in  which  infants  share 
^^  without  volition,  without  understanding,  or  expression 
^'  of  any  kind,  on  their  part,  so  it  always  signifies  the 
''  ivhoky  the  entire  of  a  family :  every  individual  with- 
^'  out  exception  :  it  includes  all  and  excludes  none  :  for, 
^'  if  a  single  one  be  excluded,  the  term  becomes  abso- 
^'  lutely  inapplicable.  And  this  accounts  for  the  infre- 
^'  quent  use  of  it ;  as  it  is  not  constantly  that  a  whole 
^'  family  resides  together,  or  continues  so  combined  as  to 
^^  form  one  band,  and  to  be  capable  of  one  and  the  same 
^'  individual  action,  the  same  fate,  (&c.  at  the  same  time. 
^^  And  this,  again,  agrees  with  a  young  family,  since  the 
^^  separation  of  the  members  of  a  family  usually  takes 
'^  place,  after  the  elder  are  grown  up  ;  and  if  but  one 
''  be  detached  from  the  family,  the  term  is  invalida- 
"  ted."(^) 

(e)  Josh.  ii.  18.  (/)  Baptists  sclf-convictcd.  p.  42. 

{g)  Baptists  self-convicted,  p.  51.  52. 


(     387     ) 

Among  the  instances  collated  by  this  able  writer, 
there  is  one  which  appears  to  give  peculiar  countenance 
to  this  position.  It  is  a  case  in  which  panoiki  includes 
every  member  of  the  fi\mily,  old  and  young,  strong  and 
feeble,  male  and  female,  without  admitting  a  single  ex- 
ception. It  is  the  family  of  Pithius  the  Lydian,  as  re- 
lated by  Herodotus.  The  faithful  subject  wished  only 
his  eldest  son  to  remain  at  home,  while  all  the  rest,  ca- 
pable of  bearing  arms,  accompanied  Xerxes  in  the  Gre- 
cian expedition.  To  his  humble  petition,  the  haughty 
tyrant  made  the  following  reply  ;  ''  Infamous  man !  you 
"  see  me  embark  my  all  in  this  Grecian  war :  myself, 
''  my  CHILDREN,  my  brothers^  my  domestics,  and  my 
''  friends ; — how  dare  you^  then,  presume  to  mention 
"  your  son,  you  who  are  my  slave,  and  whose  duty  is  to 
''  accompany  me  on  this  occasion,  panoikie,  with  all 
^' your  house,  and  even  your  wife.''(/i) 

Admitting  the  correctness  of  these  statements  in  part, 
still  an  antagonist  of  Mr.  Taylor,  "  argues,  that  the  jail- 
er's family  must  have  been  adults,  because  they  ^re- 
joiced in  God.' "(2*)  Yet  why  may  not  infants  partici- 
pate in  their  parents'  joy,  in  one  religious  ordinance, 
as  well  as  partake  of  their  sorrow,  in  another  ordinance? 
That  they  do  the  latter  is  admitted  by  the  Baptists  them- 
selves. When  the  prophet  orders  the  church  to  assem- 
ble for  a  solemn  fast,  he  says,  ^^  Gather  the  children,  and 
those  that  suck  the  breast."(/)  Gill  speaks  of  these  suck- 
lings, as  those  ''  who  were  involved  in  the  common  ca- 
"  lamity  and  distress,  w^ere  obliged  to  fasting,  and  whose 
"  cries  might  aifect  their  parents,  and  engage  them  the 
"  more  to  humiliation  and  repentance  for  their  sins, 
^^  which  brought  such  miseries,  not  only  upon  them- 
''  selves,  but  upon  their  tender  infants  ;  and  they  might 
''  think  their  cries  would  move  the  pity  and  compassion 
'^  of  God."  It  is  not  at  all  uncommonvfor  the  Scrip- 
tures to  attribute  rejoicing  to  bodies  of  men,  which  in- 

(A)  Baptists  Self-convicted,  p.  50. 

(i)  Second  Edition  of  Facts  and  Evidences,  p.  122. 

O)  Joel  ii.  16. 


(     388     ) 

dude  thousands  and  millions  of  infants.  To  save  time, 
I  pass  over  several  instances,  which  are  now  before 
me.(^)  Although  Dr.  Gill  would  have  it,  that  the  babes 
and  sucklings  which  rejoiced  at  our  Saviour's  coming, 
were  adults,(/)  yet  he  admits,  as  has  been  shewn  already, 
that  rejoicing  is  attributed  to  literal  infants,  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  where  he  tells  the  priests  to  rejoice  in  the  good- 
ness of  the  Lord  "  unto  thee  and  unto  thine  house.^'{7n) 
He  says,  ^^  rejoice  thou  and  thine  household, '^\n)  by 
which  Dr.  Gill  understands  "  he  and  his  family,  his  wife 
and  children,  or  as  many  as  are  with  him.'' 

On  the  same  subject  of  sacerdotal  families  being  sup- 
ported by  the  sacrifices  and  other  emoluments,  Josephus 
uses  the  word panoiki ;  "  So  that  he,  panoiki,  with  all 
his  house,  might  eat  them  in  the  holy  city."(o)  That 
infants  are  here  included  is  absolutely  certain.  But  to 
them,  in  company  with  their  parents,  Eusebius  attributes 
conversion  ;  because,  as  Austin  said,  they  received  the 
sacrament  of  conversion.  His  words  are  as  follows,  viz. 
^*  And  by  the  same  word  of  the  gospel,  many  of  all  ranks 
^/  were  converted  to  the  worship  of  the  God  of  the  uni- 
^'  verse ;  so  that  at  Rome  itself,  many  who  were  eminent 
''  for  their  riches,  and  for  their  descent,  did,  panoiki, 
''  with  all  their  house,  and  their  kindred,  embrace  the 
''  way  of  salvation."(/?)  Where  Moses  speaks  of  the  Is- 
raelites who  went  into  Egypt,  some  ancient  Greek  trans- 
lators, as  Trommius  informs  us,  reckon  them  to  be, 
"  every  man,  panoiki.  ivith  all  his  house,^\q)  which 
Dr.  Gill  says,  includes  ''  their  families,  wives,  children, 
*'  and  servants." 

In  a  rare  Apocryphal  book,  we  have  an  account  of 
Ptolemy's  cruel  persecution  of  the  Jews,  iitta.  yrvattiv  xac 
tixvoii,  with  their  wives  and  children^  He  forbade  any 
one  to  harbour  even  the  youngest  of  them,  at  the  peril 

{k)  2  Chr.  XXX.  25.  Ps.  xcvi.  11.  xcvii.  1.  xlv.  7.  cxlix.  2. 

(/)  Ps.  viii.  2.  Matt,  xxi,  16.  (w)  Deut.  xxvi.  11. 

(«)  Dent.  xiv.  26. 

(o)  Baptists  Self-convicted,  p.  44. 

Iji)  Do.  p.  52.     Second  Edition  of  Facts  and  Evidences,  p.  105. 

iu)  iix.  i.  1. 


(     389     ) 

of  losing  his  own  infants  and  all  belonging  to  him.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  part  of  the  edict.  ^^Whoever,  therefore,  shall 
"  protect  any  one  of  the  Jews,  ano  ya^atov  (Jisx^^  vrjrttov, 
^'  ^sxc''  f^^v  vTto  fiaiia.io,v,from  tlu  tliier  to  theyounger^to  the 
*'  babes  at  the  breast;  he  shall  be  punished  with  ignomi- 
^^  nious  torments,  panoiki,  ^^^7/^  all  his  house:^\r)  that  is, 
the  oldest  and  the  youngest,  even  tender  sucklings ;  ac- 
cording to  a  retaliation  customary  in  those  times,  as 
already  noticed  in  the  history  of  Esther. (5) 

The  learned  Editor  of  Calmet's  Dictionary  is  confident 
in  the  opinion  that  panoiki  designates  a  numerous  fami- 
ly. (/)  This  appears  to  be  the  understanding  of  Es- 
chines,  who  compares  the  Athenians,  when  offended,  to  a 
nest  of  wasps,  who  never  cease  their  molestations,  "  until 
some  one  attack  and  destroy  them,  PxVnoiki,  with  all 
their  houseP{u)  Let  it  be  remembered  that  one  female 
wasp  is  the  mother  of  ten  thousand  young,  in  a  few 
weeks  ;  and  the  Athenians  had  more  than  this  number  of 
infants  in  \\i€\v  panoiki.  If  the  jailer  had  one  for  a  thou- 
sand, some  of  them  must  have  been  infants,  if  he  were 
young  enough  for  his  charge,  and  for  the  character  and 
actions  attributed  to  him  in  the  inspired  narrative.  ''  If 
we  investigate  it,  we  shall  find  that  he  could  not  be  an 
old  man  ;  but  rather  in  the  hey-day  of  life.  His  first  in- 
tention after  the  earthquake — '  he  drew  his  sword,  and 
would  have  killed  himselF — is  not  the  character  of  age, 
which  usually  takes  events  more  coolly,  and  is  much 
more  deliberate  in  determination.  The  action  is  that  of  a 
fervid  mind.  In  like  manner,  '  he  called  for  lights,  and 
sprang  in:'  the  original  well  expresses  the  strenuous 
action  of  a  robust  body ; — of  a  man  in  the  vigour  of  life  : 
here  is  no  decrepitude,  no  old  age,  with  creeping  steps, 
forcing  an  attempt  to  advance  with  some  rapidity  :  it  is 
the  vehement  burst  of  a  man  in  full  strength :  yet  this 

(r)  3  Mace.  iii.  18.    Baptists  Self-convicted,  p.  46.  where  rtavotxta, 
but  in  Aldus,  now  before  me,  rtavotxc 
(»)  Esth.  iii.  13.  viii.  11. 

(0  Second  Ed.  of  Facts  &Ev.  Revised,  p.  113.  114, 
(w)  Baptibts  Self-convicted,  p.  51.  ^ 


(     390     ) 

man  had  a  numerous  family.  He  appears  to  have  been 
a  soldier  ; — soldiers  seldom  marry  very  early  in  life  :  his 
numerous  family,  then,  according  to  nature,  must  have 
contained  young  children." (z;)  With  these  he  rejoiced, 
and  with  these  he  was  baptized. 

XI. 

OIKODOMIA,  OIKODOME,  AND  PAS  A  OIKODOME. 

The  first  of  these  words  is  used  to  denote  spiritual 
edification  '^[lo)  so  also  is  the  second,  in  a  great  measure:(;r) 
yet  even  here,  our  doctrine  is  supported  by  analogy : 
for  the  house  of  the  mind,  whether  good  or  bad,  is  built 
up,  not  only  by  mature  thoughts,  but  by  those  which  are 
new-born,  or  even  not  yet  brought  to  light.  James  says, 
"  When  lust  hath  conceived^  it  bringeih  forth  sin  ;  and 
sin,  when  it  is  finished,  bringeth  forth  death."(^)  The 
Psalmist  says,  "  Behold,  he  travaileth  with  iniquity,  and 
hath  coyzcefyec?  mischief,  and  brought  forth  falsehood. ''(2^) 

In  the  use  of  the  third  phrase,  Paul  says,  "  In  whom, 
"  PASA  OIKODOME,  all  the  buildings  fitly  framed  toge- 
"  ther,  groweth  up  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord.'Y^) 
Dr.  Gill  believes  that  this  house  "  grows  by  an  accession 
"  of  new  stones,  or  of  souls  called  by  grace  ;''  and  is  des- 
tined at  last  to  receive  the  whole  "  number  of  God's 
"  elect."  If,  therefore,  there  are  any  elect  infants;  any 
infants  saved  by  grace  ;  then  there  must  be  an  accession 
of  infants  to  this  building.  Macknight,  my  Opponent's 
standard,  considers  this  building  as  the  gospel  church. 
Their  accession  to  it,  then,  must  be  by  baptism. 


{v)  2nd  Ed.  of  Facts  &  Ev.  Revised,  p.  114. 

(<y)  1  Tim.  i.  4. 

(jc)  Rom.  xiv.  19.  xv.  2.  2  Cor.  xii.  9.  1  Cor.  xiv.  3.  5.  12.  26.  x.  8. 
xiii.  10.  Eph.  iv.  29.  16.  1  Cor.  iii.  9.  Eph.  iv.  12.  Job  xx.  28.  2  Cor.  v.  J. 

(y)  James  i.  15.  See  Gill,  who  here  quotes  Kimchi  on  Ps.  vii.  14. 

(z)  Ps.  vii.  14.  See  also  Prov.  xix.  27.  Job  xv.  35.  |Is.  lix.  4.  13.  Jer. 
xlix.  30.  Rom.  vii.  5. 

(a)  Eph.  ii.  21. 


■V^ 


(     391     ) 

XII. 

OIKODOMEO. 

The  use  of  the  verb,  to  build,  may  throw  much  light 
upon  the  present  question.  This  word  is  used  in  rela- 
tion to  all  the  infants  of  "  the  Jewish  nation,  both  as  to 
church  and  state/'  as  Dr.  Gill  thinks,  in  that  passage, 
where  God  says,  ''  That  which  I  have  huilt  will  I  break 
"  down,  and  that  which  I  have  planted  I  will  pluck  up, 
^'  even  this  whole  land.''(6) 

Paul  says,  ''  Every  house  is  huilded  by  some  one.^' 
Gill  says,  "  This  is  true  of  houses  properly  taken,  or 
^'  improperly,  as  nations,  tribes,  families,  and  kindred.'^ 
I  would  ask.  How  are  nations,  tribes*  families  and  kin- 
dred Z>i/27^.^  All  are  willing  to  admit  infants  into  such 
buildings.  Paul  says,  moreover,  "  He  that  huilt  all 
things  is  God. ''(c)  Dr.  Gill  understands  this  ^^  of  Christ, 
and  of  his  building  the  church  :'^  but  there  must  be  no 
infants  there.  Let  us,  however,  examine  this  word  far- 
ther, under  the  following  particulars  ;  as  it  relates  to 

1.  The  Spiritual  Building.  It  is  in  relation  to  spi- 
ritual things  that  Paul  says,  "  If  I  build  again  the  things 
which  I  destroyed,  I  make  myself  a  transgressor. '"(5) 
"  Knowledge  puffeth  up,  but  love  buildeth  up,^\e) 
There  are  many  similar  instances,  in  which  our  Trans- 
lators render  this  word  by,  edify ,  which  is  etymologically 
synonimous.  ''  Edify  one  another.'^  ^'  All  things  do 
not  edify. ''(/)  They  frequently  render  the  Original  by 
the  word  build,  when  spiritual  things  are  ultimately  in- 
tended, as  Dr.  Gill  teaches.  "  For  which  of  you  in- 
tending to  build  a  tower,  sitteth  not  down  first,  and  count- 
eth  the  cost,  whether  he  have  sufficient  to  finish  it?'' 
"  This  man  began  to  build,  and  was  not  able  to  finish. "(^'•) 

(b)  Jer.  xlv.  4.  (c)  Heb.  iii.  4.  {d)  Gal.  ii.  18. 

(e)  1  Cor.  viii.  1.  (/)  1  Thess.  v.  11.    1  Cor.  x.  23.     See  also 

1  Cor.  xiv,  17.  4.  Acts  ix.  31.  {g)  Luke  xiv.  28.  30. 


(     392     ) 

A  saint  is  likened  to  "  a  wise  man,  which  built  his  house 
upon  a  rock. ''(A)     Are  no  infants  built  on  this  rock? 

The  Apostle  Peter  says,  "  Ye  also,  as  lively  stones, 
are  built  up  a  spiritual  house. '^(i)  We  have  already 
had  occasion  to  notice  GilPs  commentary  on  this  passage; 
in  which  he  represents  all  men  as  lying  naturally  in  the 
same  quarry :  but  some  are  gracioudy  dug  out,  "  and 
made  fit  for  the  spiintual  building. "^^  If  any  infants  are 
dug  out  of  nature's  quarry,  and  made  subjects  of  grace, 
then  some  infants  "  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house."  The 
law  of  Moses  ordained  that  the  man  who  refused  to 
'^  build  up  his  brother's  house,''(y)  should  have  his  foot 
bared  like  a  slave.  No  one  doubts  that  literal  infants 
are  here  meant.  Dr.  Gill  says,  "  In  the  mystical  sense 
of  it,  as  Ainsworth  observes,  it  spiritually  signified,  that 
such  as  would  not  beget  children  unto  Christ,  (or  preach 
his  gospel  for  that  purpose,)  it  should  be  declared  of 
them,  that  their  feet  are  not  shod  with  the  preparation 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ.'^  Thus,  whether  it  be  literally, 
or  spiritually  understood,  babes  are  included. 

2.  The  Ecclesiastical  Building.  This  is  intimately 
connected  with  the  former,  as  are  the  church  visible  and 
invisible.  Even  when  Peter  says  that  Christians  are 
built  up  a  spiritual  house,  Gill  says  that  they,  "  in  a 
^^  gospel  church-stdite,  become  the  house  of  God  in  a 
^^  spiritual  sense."  The  church  is  said  to  be  a  spiritual 
society,  not  as  opposed  to  a  visible  society,  but  as  dis- 
tinguished from  a  political  body.  Concerning  church 
courts,  our  excellent  standards  say,  ^'  These  assemblies 
^^  ought  not  to  possess  any  civil  jurisdiction,  nor  to  in- 
^^  flict  any  civil  penalties.  Their  power  is  wholly 
'^  moral  or  spiritual,  and  that  only  ministerial  and  de- 
^'  clarative.''()^)  Omitting  many  passages  which  might 
be  quoted  we  shall  refer  to  a  very  few,  and  those  in  Jere- 
miah only.     He  says,  "  Again    I  will  build  thee,  and 


th)  Matt  vii.  24.  25.  Luke  vi.  48.  49. 
0  1  Pet.  ii.  4.  5.  {j)  Deut.  xxv.  9. 

[k)  Form  of  Gov.  Chap.  8.  Sect.  2. 


(     393     ) 

thou  shall  be  built;  O  Virgin  of  Israel."  ^^  And  it 
'*  shall  come  to  pass,  that  like  as  I  have  watched  over 
'"  them,  to  pluck  up,  and  to  break  down,  and  to  throw 
"  down,  and  to  destroy,  and  to  afflict ;  so  will  I  watch 
"  over  them  to  build,  and  to  plant,  saith  the  Lord.'YO 
"  I  will  build  you,  and  not  pull  you  down.''(?n)  "  I  will 
"  build  them  as  at  the  first  :''(o)  that  is,  with  believers 
and  their  seed.  As  for  the  Gentiles,  that  is,  the  Christian 
church,  "  They  shall  be  built  in  the  midst  of  my  peo- 
"  pie  :"(/z)  that  is,  engrafted  on  the  old  stock,  as  Paul 
teaches  us ;  and,  as  Dr.  Gill  says,  "  partaking  of  the 
"  same  privileges  and  ordinances  as  the  people  of  God.'' 
The  administration  of  the  seal  of  initiation  to  infants, 
was  once  a  highly  valued  privilege  and  ordinance  of  the 
people  of  God.  Believers  scripturally  demand  the  same 
privilege  and  ordinance  now. 

3.  The  Doinestic  Building,  Here  we  come  to  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which  commands 
a  survivor  to  "  build  up  his  brother's  house. "(/?)  Solo- 
mon says,  "  Through  wisdom  is  an  house  builded,  and 
"'^  by  understanding,  it  is  established, "((7)  that  is,  says 
Gill,  "  The  prosperity  of  a  man's  family  is  continued 
"  and  secured  by  his  prudent  conduct."  Again, 
"  Every  wise  woman  buildeth  her  house. "W  Gill  says 
that  this  is  done,  in  part,  "  by  her  fruitful ness,  as  Leah 
"  and  Rachel  built  up  the  house  of  Israel."  Rachel  de- 
sired thus  to  build  up  the  house  of  Israel ;  and  for  that 
reason  she  ''  said  unto  Jacob,  Give  me  children,  or  else 
"  I  die. "(5)  Her  reason  for  giving  Bilhah  to  her  hus- 
band, was  ''  that  I  also  rnay  be  built  by  her,"  as  the  He- 
brew and  our  English  Margin  read  :  or  "  that  I  also 
"  may  have  children  by  her ;"(/)  as  the  Septuagint  and 
the  English  Text  read.  From  this  passage.  Dr.  Gill  re- 
fers to  a  former  one,  in  which  Leah,  acting  the  same 
part,  says,  "  It  may  be  that  I  may  be  builded  by  her  ;" 
according  to  the  Margin  :  ^^  It  may  be  that  I  may  obtain 

{I)  Jer.  xxxi.  4.  28.  (m)  Do.  xlii.  10,  {n)  Do.  xii.  16. 

(0)  Do.  xxxiii.  7  ( fi  )  Deut.  xxv.  9.        (q)  Prov.  xxiv,  3. 

(r)  Prov.  xiv.  1.  (?)  Gen.  xxx.  1.  (0  Do.  xxx.  3. 

3  D 


(     394     ) 

^'  children  by  her;'Ywj  according  to  the  Text :  On  both 
of  which,  Gill  comments  in  the  following  words,  viz. 
"  For  women,  by  bearing  children^  build  up  an  house, 
''  see  Ruth  iv.  11.  hence  a  son  in  Hebrew  is  called  ben, 
"  from  BANAH,  to  buildJ^  To  this  same  passage  in 
Ruth,  the  Doctor  refers  concerning  another  of  the  Pro- 
verbs, which  contains  the  command,  ^^  build  thine 
^^  house  ;^'(v)  to  confirm  Jarchi's  interpretation,  that  a 
man  should  '^  take  a  wife,  when  he  is  able  to  mantain  her, 
^^  whereby  his  house  may  be  built  up;  see  Ruth  iv.  11." 
This  passage  we  have  already  discussed  in  the  tenth 
Subsection  of  the  fifth  section  of  this  Argument  on 
Household  Baptism.  It  was  there  shewn,  that  this 
phraseology  was  generally  used  and  understood,  as  we 
use  and  understand  it,  by  ''  all  the  people  that  were  in 
the  gate,  and  the  elders"  of  the  Jewish  nation,  in  the 
time  of  Boaz,  the  great  grand  father  of  David  ;  that 
such  language  with  such  a  meaning,  was  common  to 
civil  courts  and  ordinary  conversation  ;  and  that,  from 
the  manner  in  which  they  refer  to  their  ancestors,  they 
evidently  considered  this  the  meaning  attached  to  such 
words  and  phrases,  by  the  earliest  patriarchs,  and  in  the 
very  first  book  of  Moses,  where  Dr.  Gill  has  shewn  that 
a  new  born  son  is  called  ben,  because  he  forms  a  part  of 
the  domestic  buildings  and  that  when  women  desired 
children,  they  expressed  a  hope  that  they  might  be 
built  up. 


We  will  now  recall  your  attention  to  the  rules  of  in- 
terpretation by  which  we  were  all  agreed  that  this  dis- 
cussion should  be  conducted.  I  will  not  now  repeat 
those  which  were  copied  from  the  Duke  de  Montausier 
and  Thomas  Hartwell  Home  ;  but  only  those  which 
were  received  from  the  Baptist  Dr.  Ryland,  with  a  view 

{u)  Gen.  xvi.  2.  {v)  Prov,  xxiv.  27. 


(     395     ) 

to  this  very  controversy.  They  are  as  follows,  viz. 
"  Every  word  should  be  taken  in  its  primary,  obvious j 
and  ordinary  meaning,  unless  there  be  something  in 
the  connexion,  or  in  the  nature  of  things^  which  re- 
quires it  to  be  taken  otherwise.'^  "  Whenever,  by  the 
connexion  of  a  term,  or  by  the  nature  of  things,  we 
are  obliged  to  depart  from  the  primary,  obvious,  and 
ordinary  meaning  of  a  word,  ive  should  depart,  as  lit- 
tle as  possible,  from  that  meaniyig,  and  even  with  reluc- 
tance,^^ Oar  object  is  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the 
word  household,  connected  with  the  baptism  of  several 
families  in  the  New  Testament.  The  question  is,  Does 
this  word  household  moAwAG,  infants,  as  the  word  disci- 
ples includes  females  ?  In  support  of  the  affirmative  of 
this  question,  I  have,  according  to  Dr.  Ryland's  rules, 
and  others  which  were  quoted,  proved  the  following 
statements,  viz.  1.  The  word  household  and  its  cog- 
nates, embrace  infants,  in  the  "  primary,  obvious,  and 
ordinary  meaning'^  of  the  words.(t(;)  2.  In  the  disputed 
passages,  there  is  nothing  connected  with  the  word 
household,  which  requires  it  to  be  taken  otherwise  than 
in  its  '^  primary,  obvious,  and  ordinary  meaning.'^ 
3.  This  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  household,  among 
those  for  whom  the  authors  of  the  disputed  passages 
immediately  wrote.  .4.  This  was  the  meaning  of  the 
word  household,  and  its  conjugates,  in  other  writings 
of  the  same  authors,  and  of  contemporary  authors,  and 
of  former  authors,  Sacred  and  Profane.  We,  therefore, 
conclude,  legitimately,  that  household  emhrsices  infants, 
and  that  household  baptism  is  infant  baptism, 

(w)  That  is,  when  these  words  are  used  in  relation  to  the  animate,  and 
not  the  inanimate  world. 


(     39G     ) 


As  we  are  now  closing  my  first  Topic,  The  scriptural 
subject  of  baptism,  it  would  not  be  amiss  to  take  a  very 
cursory  review  of  the  two  arguments  of  which  it  con- 
sists ;  Divine  command^  and  Jipostolical  practice.  In 
support  of  the  first  argument,  we  established,  upon  a 
scriptural  basis,  the  i\\^  following  propositions,  viz.  1. 
Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a  visi- 
ble church  of  God.  2.  The  Christian  church  is  a  branch 
of  the  Abrahamic  church :  or,  in  other  words,  the  Jew- 
ish Society  before  Christ,  and  the  Christian  Society  af- 
ter Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  church  in  different  dis- 
pensations. 3.  Jewish  Circumcision  before  Christ,  and 
Christian  Baptism  after  Christ,  are  one  and  the  same  seal 
in  substance,  though  in  different /or;725.  4.  The  admi- 
nistration of  this  seal  to  infants  was  once  enjoined  ^by  di- 
vine authority ;  that  is,  God  once  commanded  it.  5. 
The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  has  never  since 
been  prohibited  by  divine  authority ;  that  is,  this  com- 
mand of  God,  originally  given  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
not  repealed  in  the  New  Testament,  but  rather  confirm- 
ed. Regardless  of  their  own  prejudices  or  the  empty 
declamation  of  others,  let  my  hearers  examine  these  pre- 
mises in  detail;  let  them  calmly  contemplate  every  arti- 
cle, and  weigh  the  consequence  of  admitting  them  all. 
There  is  no  person  of  candour  and  intelligence  who  can 
deny,  that  if  these  propositions  are  true,  then  there  is 
now  in  force,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  an 
unrepealed  divine  command,  for  administering  to  believ^ 
ers  and  their  infants,  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church, 
which,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  baptism. 
But  let  it  be  remembered,  that  I  have  not  asked  you  to 
take  the  premises  on  trust.  They  have  been  put  to  the 
most  rigid  test,  and  the  more  they  are  tried  by  the  word 
of  God,  the  more  does  their  truth  appear.  We  must, 
therefore,  in  good  conscience,  believe  the  inevitable 
conclusion  from  these  scriptural  premises,  that  there  is  a 
DIVINE  COMMAND  ybr  thc  baptism  of  infants. 


(   397    ) 

On  the  Second  Argument,  Apostolical  practicey  we  have 
carefully  examined  the  Household  Baptism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. '  To  ascertain  the  meaning  of  Oikos,  house,  or  house- 
hold, we  have  patiently  explored  the  words  Oikos  Oikia,  Oiko- 
c?(wieo,  with  their  numerous  conjugates,  whet  her  used  in  relation 
to  the  material  or  spiritual  house,  the  ecclesiastical  or  celestial, 
the  national  or  sectional,  the  royal, or  pontifical,  the  patriarchal 
or  domestic  house.     In  this  investigation  we  have  seen,  that  a 

|)romise  of  a  house  or  household,  is  a  promise  of  infants ;-. 

that  a  house  is  given  or  built,  repaired  or  increased,  by  the 

birth  of  infants ; that  where  good  is  said  to  be  in  a  house, 

it  is  in  infants ; that  when  evil  is  threatened  or  sent  upon 

a  hou^e,  infants  die ; that  the  death  ofinfants  is  the  rolling 

and  flowing  away  and  destroying  of  a  housh ; that  the 

moving  of  a  house  is  the  moving  o{  infants ;  and  the  establish- 
ing of  a  house,  the  settling  oi  infants. — infants  have  been  shewn 
to  participate  in  the  riches  and  poverty  of  a  house,  in  the  joys 
and  sorrows  of  a  house,  in  the  blessings  and  curses  of  a  house, 

and  in  the  mercies  and  judgments  of  a  house. When  the 

solitary  man  is  set  in  a  house,  he  is  placed  among  children ; 
and  when  the  barren  woman  sits  in  a  house,  the  meaning  is, 

that  she  has  an  infant  offspring. To  govern  a  house,  is  to 

govern  children  ;  and  to  provide  for  a  house,  is  to  take  care  of 
children. — To  feed  a  house,  is  to  feed  infants ;  and  when  a 

hoiise  eats,  infants  eat. According  to  uniform  Scripture 

usage,  the  circumcision  of  a  house,  would  mean  the  circumci- 
sion of  infajits ;  and  under  the  teaching  of  God's  Word  and 
Spirit,  we  are  compelled  to  believe,  that  the  baptism  of  a  house 
or  household,  IS  infant  baptism.  Wherefore,  the  proposition 
with  which  this  Topic  commences,  is  true,  that  "  The  Scrip- 
tures consider  infants  as  suitable,  though  not  exclusive  subjects 
of  Christian  Baptism." 

If,  then.  Infant  baptism  be  found  in  the  scriptures,  it  is  no 
*'human  tradition,"  as  the  Challenge  asserts,  and  as  my  Oppo- 
nent has  undertaken  to  prove.  You  have  heard  and  weighed 
his  evidence.  I  am  not  aware  of  having  unduly  neglected  to 
meet  any  thing  of  his,  which  deserved  the  name  of  argument. 
I  am  yet  disposed  to  plead,  not  guilty,  to  the  charge  of  observ- 
ing a  factitious  and  pernicious  ordinance.  May  your  judg- 
ments be  formed  by  grace,  according  to  truth  and  justice.  As 
for  ourselves,  we  feel  bound  to  stand  by  our  present  scriptu- 
ral system,  in  the  midst  of  reproach  and  opposition,  looking  to 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  for  strength,  and  hoping  for  the  blessing  of 
God  upon  an  institution  which  is  founded  upon  divine  com- 
mand and  APOSTOLICAL  PRACTICE. 


[# 


^ 


■•(1^ 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $I.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


SEP    11  19o- 
APfi  17  194! 

'  7QnoV49CS 
DEC  2  n  194SG|lRGUl.AT10N 


19Jan'50tH 

'Nov'SOHJ 
9 


\^^ 


\«66 


REC'D  LD 

DEC  2  9  1976 


I 


yc  426; 

U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDMmES7H0 


/vl5- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


m 


■r^ 


'.  ">;. 


